Hacker News Reader

Comment by joe_guy | Hacker News Reader

> am a fan of honoring contracts and sales.

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.

View on HN

If you sell someone a car, and then go take it back, you’re not violating a contact, you’re stealing a car.

If you never deliver it, maybe that’s arguable but even then it could often be considered theft.

It would be more akin to selling someone a car, then telling them you're giving them the money back instead of the vehicle.

I disagree. As there is a sales office at a livestock auction who are paid by buyers expecting to take delivery of livestock they just paid for, a third party is involved. So it is not as cut and dry as “never mind, I’ll just give you your money back.”

What happens if a wolf killed the goat? Surely they wouldn't be unconditionally criminal at that point.

Perhaps the third party needs to be made whole, also. IANAL but paying off contracts is extremely common.

failing to perform because of an action you took is different than failing to perform because of an action someone else (or nature) took.

> 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

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.

They offered to make the other party whole.

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.

> were careless and a wild animal killed the goat, theyd not of unconditionally committed a crime

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.

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com