Cops extrajudicially confiscating property isn't violating rights? Have someone try it on you and see whether you still think that.
Cops in the US get off on forcing their will on others.
Cops in the US get off on forcing their will on others.
Counties are creatures of states. In some states, they’re jurisdictional boundaries. In California, they’re administrative entities [1]. (Cities, on the other hand, have jurisdictional characteristics.)
[1] https://www.counties.org/general-information/county-structur...
It's perfectly acceptable to violate a contract. It doesn't matter you're not a fan of this. As long as you follow through with the terms of violating it.
> Breach of contract is not a crime or even a tort. Punitive damages are generally not an available remedy. The only remedies are to make the non-breaching party whole. The main theory behind this rule is that the law should not punish economically efficient breach.
The contract was not in the article but we can assume that it would be whatever financial compensation would be to make them whole. That's something they offered but the other party kept making threats that they would be criminally charged, even though the article states it was within their rights to not sell the goat.
IANAL but I can't imagine what permitted the police to be involved.
Every contract comes with its invisible body of law attached. For purchase and sale contracts, particularly those involving livestock auctions, property law comes into play. Withholding someone else’s property is criminal. The police showed discretion in not charging the family. But recovery is totally within their remit.
If they were careless and a wild animal killed the goat, theyd not of unconditionally committed a crime, theyd only need to make the other party whole.
Yes. Same way if I sell a car and then a tree falls on it, I didn’t commit fraud. But if I sell it and then refuse to deliver, the cops can execute a search-and-seizure warrant. Intent matters.
If you never deliver it, maybe that’s arguable but even then it could often be considered theft.
Perhaps the third party needs to be made whole, also. IANAL but paying off contracts is extremely common.
You are either being voluntarily ignorant or pedantic, I’m not sure which, but of course it doesn’t matter if I’m a fan of it. You know who also is a fan of enforcing contracts? The state, when they fund an agricultural program you sell an animal through and then don’t hold up your end of the bargain.