Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

The real deal...was it?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-20 of 20 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 21 Jun 2012 17:34:26 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 21 Jun 2012 19:40:46 BDT
gille liath says:
Seriously?...

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 22:04:45 BDT
monica says:
No, seems to me an earnest question--Simon, you sometimes ask interesting questions and raise interesting points just before you undermine them (rhino horn commerce a problem to be taken seriously but you immediately went on to vegetarianism which wasn't relevant), but I do congratulate you on forsaking that weird fuzzy diction your posts had in pre-"the fount" days--maybe you could address fuzzy logic now . . .

In any case, a handshake is not legally binding. It's a social convention only. Whether people on the show must sign contracts stipulating that a handshake is to be considered equivalent to the signing of another contract, I don't know. But I'm wondering what the contract-closing gestures in other cultures, pre-Westernisation, might have been--and whether they too were ever the same as a gesture of greeting--?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 22:24:10 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Jun 2012 22:26:08 BDT
TomC says:
"In any case, a handshake is not legally binding. It's a social convention only."

A verbal contract is, however. I'm not a lawyer, but digging into my fuzzy memory of contract law, a contract comprises:

1. Offer. This element can be verbal, and was present.

2. Acceptance. This element can also be verbal, and was present.

3. Consideration. This means an undertaking to exchange anything of value - ie money, goods, services. This was also present.

The contract is formed by those three elements; the handshake adds nothing in any legal sense.

The usual problem with a verbal contract is proving that it was made, but one made on nationwide TV is beyond dispute. However, I doubt anyone would seek to enforce it in the circumstances, since the TV show is supposed to be an entertainment. One could imagine that the supply of contestants would dry up if people felt they were entering a legal minefield. Also, any damages resulting from a breach in these circumstances would I believe be minimal anyway and not worth recovering.

Posted on 21 Jun 2012 22:31:07 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Jun 2012 22:32:29 BDT
gille liath says:
What he said.

The point about the handshake is, of course, that it signifies acceptance beyond dispute - ie it comes into proving whether the verbal contract existed.

But still, Dickinson's Real Deal? Were we all watching this? I feel left out.

Posted on 21 Jun 2012 22:35:08 BDT
David Groom says:
Dickinson's Real Deal? Sad or what?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 23:01:19 BDT
Luddite Joe says:
At least while Simon's watching Dickinson's Real Deal he can't be doing any harm on the forums.

Posted on 21 Jun 2012 23:10:25 BDT
TomC says:
Does Dickinson still look as though he's been Tangoed?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 23:55:33 BDT
LJ, that made me laugh. Simon spends a lot of his time watching crap TV...for "research purposes", honest.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 10:22:27 BDT
Beloved...much can be learned from the Duke's show...also Deal or No Deal...Pointless...all a window into the mind of the people...

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 10:22:53 BDT
Groomy is beyond the Duke...

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 10:25:36 BDT
David Groom says:
Simon DHB,

'Groomy is beyond the Duke... '

He has better things to do than watch inane cr*p.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 10:28:26 BDT
Ah yes...the groomster needs to study...great books....words of wisdom...so that he can educate all....

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 10:28:57 BDT
Luddite Joe says:
I can see why "Pointless" would appeal to you Simon...

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 10:29:55 BDT
Luddite...nice one...you made the Fount chuckle...

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 12:17:43 BDT
Last edited by the author on 22 Jun 2012 12:18:01 BDT
gille liath says:
Oh right...so when you said 'this was present' etc, you actually meant 'would have been present'? Of course you can refuse to answer on the grounds it would incriminate you. ;)

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 12:28:23 BDT
TomC says:
Ehhh ?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 12:29:57 BDT
gille liath says:
Your use of the phrase 'this was present' implies you actually saw the programme.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 12:33:49 BDT
Last edited by the author on 22 Jun 2012 12:34:12 BDT
TomC says:
I was responding to The Fount's masterly narration of the event; I don't watch the program.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 12:35:16 BDT
gille liath says:
I believe you...fahsans wouldn't.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  7
Total posts:  20
Initial post:  21 Jun 2012
Latest post:  22 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions