[UK] Judge Orders Father To Take His Children To Church

Did you miss this?

Or that he was desperate to see his kids?

I know I'd do almost anything for mine.


Fact is the judge imposed this.
If he didn't sign he may have been waiting ages for the next chance of agreement. Months maybe years.
So I can see where he may have felt he had no choice.
Bottom line is the judge was wrong. And needs to be disciplined.

I didn't read the article just skimmed, but if there is no condition in the agreement, at least in the USA, then the judge is smoking. Unless the ex-wife asked for an amendment or the child requests it.



Does not change the matter if you make a contract, or divorce agreement. Desperate to see your kids does not count as duress or undue influence. A deal is a deal.

No, contracts are overturned all the time, just because it's in a contract, doesn't make the contract legal.

No, it just means you don't realize how horribly insignificant we really are in the universe, and how vast it really is, and the numbers of probability.

You're using "blind faith" wrong, and "believe/belief."

Contracts are not overturned "all the time."

It happens, but much less than you think.

But if you think it happens more than .001% of the time, please give us evidence to show that.

Please do not give out your version of business law when you don't even understand law itself...

Contracts are overturned quite often, but far more often, unlawful contracts simply aren't challenged.

Coming from the guy who doesn't understand economics, right.

I never said an exact number, nor a % of total, get your panties out of a wad.

The contract is presumably between the mother and the father? If that's the case then unless the mother goes and sue the father for breach of contract, no one is actually gonna care if the father acted on the clause or not then.

So I guess it's no biggie as long as the father doesn't piss off the mother.

Obviously you have no idea what a contract is.

Protip: Not all contracts are in paper format.

No, you just made an assertion that contracts are overturned all the time, as in a majority (or significant portion) of contracts are overturned. Which is false.

I asked you to prove your assertion, but then again, you never give sources to your statements anyway. You just pretend you are right.

To those who say "read the bible" I say no, read the parallel bible. The one I have has four different translations, verse by verse, side by side.

Actually just looking through it is really enough. Some verses that are short paragraphs in one translation will fill the page in another.

People, fallible people, wrote it and translated it, often putting their prejudices into the mouths of prophets.

Even St. Jerome, who translated the bible into Latin in the 4th century, did this putting horns on Moses.

No, he indicated time not percentages. Thousands of contracts are written every day. If 0.001 of them are overturned, then it DOES happen "all the time."

No, your comprehension of what I said is inaccurate, as that is not what I asserted.

All the time =/= a majority, I'm sorry you read it as such, but you're wrong.

ITT: "All the time" doesn't signify a rate of occurrence, but instead a concept of time....

I know you guys love to argue with me, but to get the context completely wrong just to seem like you are intelligent is baffling....

IIT: Actually, it could signify a percentile amount, or an allotment of time, or both.

I find is absolutely hilarious how you parrot things I've said back to me like you're informing me of something...

A contract is a binding agreement between two parties. It can be implied, expressed, written, etc. Many contracts, even written ones, are unlawful. As well, any contract pertaining to a practice that is unlawful is forfeit.

Many of the bank account agreements contained completely unlawful clauses, undeclared fees, etc, and people grudgingly paid them without challenge. See where I'm going with this? Probably not, but I'm sure you'll respond with some diatribe about how contracts can be unlawful and most people simply don't challenge them....


It sure seems that you are arguing with everyone in this thread, even people who haven't said a word to you.

The use of "all the time" means that it's not some huge precedent when a contract is found to be unlawful. And the follow up that many contracts are illegal is pure fact. Neither of those are claims of how many or how often, only that it is not insignificant.

It's generally referred to a rate per time, and since the rate and the time values weren't specified, it is very accurate.

The context isn't wrong, your interpretation of it is.

Because I don't think you understand anything related to business, even though you stated that you are in management.

Here is a good synopsis of contracts and contract laws.

Here is a good synopsis of defenses in contract law.

Most state laws generally state that a contract is made and enforceable as long as a promise of services in exchange of either promise of services or a tangible asset (aka cash) is agreed on by two parties in good faith.

Contracts are legal unless a defense is presented to make them illegal. Neither a majority nor a significant portion of contracts are illegal, just because you say so.

Can you prove this statement?

Neither of those words mean "many."

And the rather small number of contracts I've signed in my life (primarily rental contracts) have included provisos that I happily ignored because they violated state laws and city statutes. It's naive to pretend every contract is flawlessly combed through by a neutral attorney, which would be the standard necessary.

I find it fascinating that you focus narrowly on business-to-business contracts. I'm not even sure they make up a preponderance of contracts.

Definition of "Many"


Majority can be construed as many, as both consists of a large number of items. I added significant to my argument because I do not believe neither many, nor a "majority" as implied by both Jet and Jassik.

Do you know that it violated state laws, or are you assuming? Somehow, I don't think you understand law either....or how contracts are constructed.....

I'm not focusing on business-to-business contracts....

Contract law applies to everyone, businesses or individuals. I use the term "entity" as it applies to everyone and everything, and not on a focused group.

Great assumptions there bub!

It seems like a lot of these threads lately have been grounded solidly in arguing semantics.

It bores the ***out of me.

Looks like the thread is back on topic so I'm not going to derail it anymore. If you feel like debating feel free to send a pm or start a thread but I just don't care enough to do it myself especially with your given reason.

Kingnobody obviously does not know what "lairs loans" are. Contracts and foreign treaties get overturned more then you think from the establishment you so praise and love aka the federal reserve. i'll let you have the last word mr nobody

You have such a loose grasp on what management and business are, I'll just continue to laugh at your chest puffing while cashing my huge paychecks.


Both Wells Fargo and US Bank have settled massive lawsuits over their overdraft and maintenance fees as recently as last September.
A new law regarding predatory lending (aka not in good faith) and another regarding minimum overdraft protection provisions went into effect in 2010 and 2011 respectively.
Short-term predatory lending has been found to be almost completely unlawful, a decision in 2009 labeled them usury, and 18 states have outlawed the practice. Meaning that all those contract are unlawful.

I'm under no obligation to prove anything to you, open your eyes before you open your mouth, turd.

ok, first of all, LMAO... Do you not know the difference between "many" and "the many"?

Second, millions of payday loan contracts were issued prior to the laws in 2008-2010 naming them unlawful and thus, the contracts unlawful. Are you saying that millions isn't many? Or the unlawful terms regarding overdraft and maintenance fees on checking accounts, there's billions of those, are you saying that billions isn't many?

You puffed your chest out and got schooled, yet again. Go back to hyperbole and "Liberalz!" because you suck even worse at facts.

Whatever you say bub. Your statement is just as valid as Jet's "I'm perfect, my test scores say I am" one.

So? You do know that those lawsuits are in appeal, and the Wells Fargo lawsuit was once overturned in appellate court by the judge who ordered them to pay a little over $203 million. I highly doubt it that Wells Fargo will pay because it was the same judge who was overruled who again imposed the exact same penalty...

Source

I know that law, and that doesn't prove anything.

I mean, your argument should have been "it was at a time" but instead you are referring to bank practices that are currently being held.

Are you going to quote Dodd-Frank also?

Obviously you failed to grasp the concept. It was not unlawful when those loans were issued originally, and it is illegal today. But can you prove that those loans are issued today? Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

Wait, are you saying that the definition from Webster's Dictionary is wrong? I guess in your mind a large number relative to the overall amount doesn't construe as "many," and a small number relative to the overall amount does.....

So, wait, if a payday loan was issued in 2007, does that make it illegal in 2007 because of a law made in 2008? Looks like the concept of time escapes you also...

Strange, you have not proven anything more than your own idiocy. How again did I get schooled? Was it because you have the same grasp on reality as Lordgrim?

In the UK, a similar law was enacted, and included all loans that occured prior to it also.

So Yes, if a law is passed in 2008, and the illegal act was perpetrated in 2007, and it was not "lawful" i.e. there were no accompanying laws to support it, yes it can be retrospectively condemned as unlawful at the time.

At least in the UK, I'm sure this is probably doable with the right Lawyers in the US. Time is not an excuse for Stupid.

It's the kind of loan Hydra took out to build their megafortress of doom.

But what about the fortress of solitude, does it really exist? Going over Antarctica with google maps I've seen some shaky pixels, I think it might.

The loans weren't lawful or unlawful until they were ruled on, and they were found to be unlawful. Certain things are grandfathered, not because they were legal, but because they weren't expressly illegal prior to that judgement. They were contracts not made in good faith, as the lender knew that borrower would not be able to repay under the terms stated. They were unlawful contracts, and any singular contract could have been challenged and wasn't.

That's the way it works.

As well, the Wells Fargo judgement is in appeal because it's cheaper to pay armies of lawyers than the judgement, that's simple business.