Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules a Blood Oath Is Unenforceable

Posted by samzenpus on from the how-about-a-handshake dept.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals in Santa Ana agreed with a lower court when it ruled that a contract written in blood between two Korean businessmen is unenforceable. One of the men agreed to repay the other about $170,000 of an investment. The deal was written in blood on a piece of paper in Korean characters. The translated note read: "Sir, please forgive me. Because of my deeds you have suffered financially. I will repay you to the best of my ability." Although the court has struck down the blood oath, they made no mention of contracts written on the bodies of ritual sacrifices, which are still binding.

5 comments

  1. Isn't a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still a contract, no matter what medium its written in?

    1. Re:Isn't a contract by evolx10 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was unenforceable because, translated its pretty vague. Nothing really to enforce, the one man said "best of his abilities" I don't think the chemical makeup of the ink used is a determining factor in contract liability.

  2. Decision unrelated to blood by slashqwerty · · Score: 4, Informative

    The court's ruling is available on the web [1]. The court did not care that the contract was written in blood.

    The contract was invalid because there was no consideration. The issue came about because the plantiff invested in Mr. Son's company. The company failed so Mr. Kim was out $170,000. The two went to a sushi bar where they "consumed a great deal of alcohol". Feeling sorry for Mr. Kim, Son pricked his finger and wrote the "promissory note".

    Mr. Kim claims the consideration was that he graciously held off on suing for a year. The court ruled that was not consideration because Mr. Kim did not have valid grounds to sue in the first place. He invested in a business. The business failed. That's his tough luck.

    [1] for the time being anyway. It says "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS".

    1. Re:Decision unrelated to blood by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Excellent. I had a feeling it was something like that. Lord, I hate how articles on court cases so frequently miss the damned point.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  3. Yes, obviously not a good contract by smchris · · Score: 1

    No statement of parties or terms.

    But, then, only so much blood and alcohol I suppose.