Comments on: Love, Actionable http://lawiscool.com/2008/08/02/love-actionable/?nucrss=1 The law school blog and podcast from Canada Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Lawrence Gridin http://lawiscool.com/2008/08/02/love-actionable/comment-page-1/#comment-2464 Lawrence Gridin Sun, 03 Aug 2008 06:12:33 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=565#comment-2464 Hahaha sweet video, Omar. Hahaha sweet video, Omar.

]]> By: Tim http://lawiscool.com/2008/08/02/love-actionable/comment-page-1/#comment-2458 Tim Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:31:53 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=565#comment-2458 I'm not sure I understand how characterizing something as a "love" relationship somehow immunizes it from a duty of responsible action. Actually, I would argue something like the opposite position: if you love someone, I would say that the "standard of care" in these situations is higher than with strangers or acquaintances. If you ask someone to marry you, you better be damned sure you actually want them to say yes. This isn't like asking someone to a movie, or even to go in together on buying a car. It's (partially) like the duty to inform patients that physicians carry: the duty is to inform is proportional to the severity of the possible outcome. If you tell someone you love them, and want to marry them, you're proposing perhaps the most serious relationship possible between two people (with the exception of the relationship between parents and children, of course). The irrationality that manifests itself in people who are in love is of the comic kind, most of the time. They sometimes do crazy things, but those crazy things are supposed to be done in the ultimate furtherance of the loved-one's interests, or at the very least to express how you feel about them: I sell my car to buy my loved one a pet fruit-bat (it wasn't a very nice car); I get arrested at the bus depot trying to arrange city buses into her name; I stand outside her window and play "In Your Eyes" really loudly on my ghetto blaster; etc. The only redeemable aspect of the defendant's behaviour in the relevant case is that he was honest before committing them both to a much more serious set of relations. Even so, I think he still has to bear the responsibility for his lack of regard for her welfare. I’m not sure I understand how characterizing something as a “love” relationship somehow immunizes it from a duty of responsible action. Actually, I would argue something like the opposite position: if you love someone, I would say that the “standard of care” in these situations is higher than with strangers or acquaintances. If you ask someone to marry you, you better be damned sure you actually want them to say yes. This isn’t like asking someone to a movie, or even to go in together on buying a car. It’s (partially) like the duty to inform patients that physicians carry: the duty is to inform is proportional to the severity of the possible outcome. If you tell someone you love them, and want to marry them, you’re proposing perhaps the most serious relationship possible between two people (with the exception of the relationship between parents and children, of course).

The irrationality that manifests itself in people who are in love is of the comic kind, most of the time. They sometimes do crazy things, but those crazy things are supposed to be done in the ultimate furtherance of the loved-one’s interests, or at the very least to express how you feel about them: I sell my car to buy my loved one a pet fruit-bat (it wasn’t a very nice car); I get arrested at the bus depot trying to arrange city buses into her name; I stand outside her window and play “In Your Eyes” really loudly on my ghetto blaster; etc.

The only redeemable aspect of the defendant’s behaviour in the relevant case is that he was honest before committing them both to a much more serious set of relations. Even so, I think he still has to bear the responsibility for his lack of regard for her welfare.

]]> By: Omar Ha-Redeye http://lawiscool.com/2008/08/02/love-actionable/comment-page-1/#comment-2457 Omar Ha-Redeye Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:18:38 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=565#comment-2457 Great post. But after seeing this video, I think claims of promissory estoppel are probably the least thing on most men's minds. The commentary makes it even better: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0PsB8HuRLiA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0PsB8HuRLiA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Great post.

But after seeing this video, I think claims of promissory estoppel are probably the least thing on most men’s minds. The commentary makes it even better:

]]>