Implicit Contracts

What are the limits on implicit contracts? We all know that when you sit down at a restaurant and order dinner, there are prices on the menu, but generally no actual statement that says “you will have to pay this amount”. Indeed, there are very few situations where services are sold without at least some sort of price listing beforehand. That said, this low level of notification may be merely the result of state interference.

Let us say there is no state. I walk by a stand where Swedish meatballs are arrayed in little cups next to a restaurant. No price is posted, but a sign does say “Swedish Foodguild”. The person manning the stand walks up to me and hands me one. When I’ve eaten it, he says, “Twenty dollars please.” Should I be obligated to pay?

Let us say I refuse, saying that he needed to let me know he would charge me for the meatball before I accepted it. He replies, “No, that sign says Foodguild! Can’t you read?”

“Yes,” I reply, “but I was not aware that it was anything but a funny name.”

“Too bad for you,” he says, “Foodguild policy states that if you accept food from us, you have to pay for it, even if you didn’t agree beforehand.”

“How was I supposed to know that?” I ask, growing steadily more annoyed.

“It’s your responsibility to find out what our policies are before you interact with us,” he says, snickering, “They’re up on our website.”

“Oh,” I say, remembering a detail that would be helpful, “Well, y’know, it’s my policy, stated on my website, that if you sell me something without an explicit contract, I cannot be held liable to pay. I know you saw my lapel pin with my name on it.”

And so on and so forth. Someone (GilesStratton, wannabe feudal lord at large) said that limited liability in corporations is an implied contract, and that it was my responsibility to know their policies before doing business with them. My question then is, why can’t that work both ways? If you say that it is because of convention, who gets to decide what qualifies as conventional?

And yet, you accepted it. So yes, you may well be able to say that you didn’t agree to the contract, therefore it is void. In which case you may keep your money, he on the other hand has the right to claim compensation for the meatball you ate.

So, do I have to pay or not? If I get to keep my money, but he has a right to claim compensation, who wins?

You get to keep your money, and then pay him back in compensation.

That appears to be a contradictory statement. If I have to compensate him, I’m not keeping my money.

perhaps what you owe as compensation is not ‘your’ money, but ‘his’.

perhaps.

The legal precedent established by an impartial judge.

I see. And how do you define “impartial”? Who gets to decide what judge is “impartial”?

You get the money back that you paid for the meatball, and then you give him the money you owe in compensation. Nothing contradictory.

So, is this latter compensation based on the implicit contract? Or is it merely compensating him for the loss of the meatball? Because, he gave that to me freely.

You rejected the implicit contract and took the meatball anyway, it’s compensation for your act of theft.

But, in order for him to hold me liable for theft, he would have had to reject my implicit contract, and therefore his demand for compensation would be theft. Under my implicit contract, the meatball thus given is automatically free.

What does everyone else do? What is the custom?

I think implicit contracts are largely a matter of convention, rather than of some objective deduction.

It`s like taking off shoes when you come for a visit some place. In such a case too a misunderstanding could arise from not knowing the local custom.

Given that, in an environment without a central, unitary state, there could be multiple conventions, would it not be better to require that all contracts be explicit to be enforceable?

Required by whom?

Ethics? Morality? Who requires you to abide by implicit contracts? The point is, that one ought not feel obligated to fulfill a contract to which one did not explicitly agree.

The law of the land is the law. The customs apply within the context of a specific property. If you are on your property, your customs apply. If you are on someone else’s, you had better make sure you know what you are engaging in.

Hmm. . . interesting. How is it determined whose land it is? Must it be marked all around? Must its designated entrances have its laws posted? How far does your “my land, right or wrong” principle go?

The anwser I was looking for was private courts.

Anyways I think Stranger nailed it on the head here.

Why should one place convert to nothing but explicit contracts just for your sake? How is that more moral, if what they have works for them?

Its really not whole lot different from other things when you think about it. You would investigate what are the customs (rules) on a certain private road you are about to use, so why wouldnt you investigate what are the meatball stands customs in swedish quarter before you visit there.

What the hell kind of question is that?