# The NYT Ethicist and Dueling Donations **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 21, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113 "2013-07-21T15:58:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/21 "2013-07-22T02:54:22Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Ok then. Can two people contract with each other to give away money to other parties? When one of the two people doesn’t fulfill his commitment what damages does the other person suffer? Let’s say I’m a chocolatier and you are a florist. You and I enter into a contract: On Valentine’s Day, I will deliver a box of chocolates to your sweetheart and you will deliver a bouquet of flowers to mine. Have you (as opposed to your sweetheart) suffered any damages if I fail to deliver the chocolates, but you deliver the flowers? Do you think this contract is unenforceable? (Why or why not?) ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/22 "2013-07-22T02:55:32Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > Let’s say I’m a chocolatier and you are a florist. > > You and I enter into a contract: On Valentine’s Day, I will deliver a box of chocolates to your sweetheart and you will deliver a bouquet of flowers to mine. > > Have you (as opposed to your sweetheart) suffered any damages if I fail to deliver the chocolates, but you deliver the flowers? Do you think this contract is unenforceable? (Why or why not?) Didn’t read this right. I don’t know, see below. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/23 "2013-07-22T02:57:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This would be a great case for specific performance. > > I admit that the civil law stuff is not my strongest suit, but even if damages are nominal, that doesn’t mean there’s no contract, right? I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer. Simple contracts are based on a quid pro quo and there’s none here. I’d think if there is some form of contract to cover this situation it would be more difficult to enforce as an oral agreement. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/24 "2013-07-22T03:00:01Z")
Meh. I’d just tell the story to everyone I know. Eventually he would hear that his dickishness was common knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/25 "2013-07-22T03:03:24Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > Let’s say I’m a chocolatier and you are a florist. > > You and I enter into a contract: On Valentine’s Day, I will deliver a box of chocolates to your sweetheart and you will deliver a bouquet of flowers to mine. > > Have you (as opposed to your sweetheart) suffered any damages if I fail to deliver the chocolates, but you deliver the flowers? Do you think this contract is unenforceable? (Why or why not?) I suppose this one could be interpreted to mean that I am paying you to deliver chocolates to my sweetheart while you are paying me to deliver flowers to mine. I don’t think it’s quite the same situation in the OP. However, if the guy in the OP set up his deal this way he might have had something. Instead they said the equivalent of “If you give flowers to your sweetie, I’ll give flowers to mine”. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/26 "2013-07-22T03:10:48Z")
I would write a letter to the board of the Opera, letting them know that a board member is lying in order to secure donations. That kind of thing reflects very poorly on a board of directors, can make it harder for them to fundraise, and I would think they would be interested in knowing. There’s no way I would expect to see any of that money, though. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/27 "2013-07-22T03:15:25Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer. Simple contracts are based on a quid pro quo and there’s none here. I’d think if there is some form of contract to cover this situation it would be more difficult to enforce as an oral agreement. Where are you getting this idea from? Exchanging an act for an act is a perfectly valid form of consideration. (“Consideration” is the legal term for the exchange of value inherent in a contract.) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/28 "2013-07-22T03:16:10Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I suppose this one could be interpreted to mean that I am paying you to deliver chocolates to my sweetheart while you are paying me to deliver flowers to mine. I don’t think it’s quite the same situation in the OP. However, if the guy in the OP set up his deal this way he might have had something. Instead they said the equivalent of “If you give flowers to your sweetie, I’ll give flowers to mine”. Actually, I think it’s a pretty good analogy. The letter-writer’s “sweetie” is the art museum; the weasel’s sweetie is the opera. If the letter writer had asked the weasel to give money to the opera, your revision would be right; but he asked the weasel to give it to the art museum. Certainly I think telling folks the story is a fine approach, after giving the weasel a chance to fix it. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/29 "2013-07-22T03:19:38Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Actually, I think it’s a pretty good analogy. The letter-writer’s “sweetie” is the art museum; the weasel’s sweetie is the opera. If the letter writer had asked the weasel to give money to the opera, your revision would be right; but he asked the weasel to give it to the art museum. > > Certainly I think telling folks the story is a fine approach, after giving the weasel a chance to fix it. Whoops! You are right. I read it wrong. I thought each was giving to their own charity. I think you are correct. Nevermind Bricker and Alley, my confusion. As the Volokh thing said the oral contract part makes it difficult to enforce, but not impossible. It’s reasonable to believe each person promised to give to the other’s charity the same amount. ETA: and Hello Again too. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/30 "2013-07-22T03:21:11Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer. Simple contracts are based on a quid pro quo and there’s none here. I’d think if there is some form of contract to cover this situation it would be more difficult to enforce as an oral agreement. Yes, there is a quid pro quo. If I pay a florist to deliver flowers to me girlfriend, the consideration that I receive is the same as one sde of the chocolate/flowers agreement. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/31 "2013-07-22T03:26:03Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Yes, there is a quid pro quo. If I pay a florist to deliver flowers to me girlfriend, the consideration that I receive is the same as one sde of the chocolate/flowers agreement. You’ll see I was mistaken in my understanding of the problem and you are correct. OTOH, if I made such an agreement I’d make sure my sweetie got the chocolates. So ethically speaking, the guy is a dumbass. ETA: Not to mention me for not reading carefully. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/32 "2013-07-22T04:18:12Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > “Like hell I offered to match a $10,000 annual donation. I said “a thousand” and he must have misheard me. Then every year after that I said “how about the same deal?” and he accepted. It’s not my fault he needs a hearing aid. And I never said that bit about “nailed me.”” I’ll go along with this part of the post. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Anyway, the odds of this ever going to a lawsuit sound extremely poor. The poor flim-flammed guy who Doesn’t Like The Opera probably doesn’t want to be widely known as a jackass. But this part of the post is itself jackass material. I guess victims of scams in general should just shut up about, huh?- because all the smart people like Jack would snicker at them for getting taken The victim of breach of a good-faith agreement is just that- a victim- and the insults should be directed only at the party committing the breach. As for the the ethicist’s advice I take it means not to " gossip" means not to mention the breach to anyone. That is more jackass material, on the part of the ethicist. Word _should_ get around about about people who lie and cheat, should’t it? If you want reasons then try these: (1) of the need to alert others who might otherwise also fall prey, and (2) unethical behavior deserves _per se_ to be called out regardless of any potential that it might be repeated. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/33 "2013-07-22T04:19:29Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > He swindled a donation out of the person he made the agreement with. That’s not good or altruistic. He swindled somebody into doing a good thing, though. I mean, the money that Opera Guy donated actually went to the charity that Museum Guy said it would. It’s not like Opera guy donated and the money actually went to some con artist. I guess I don’t really see who’s harmed. True, if Opera Guy hadn’t made the deal with Museum Guy, he probably wouldn’t have donated the $40,000 to the Opera. But if Opera Guy really had a moral objection to donating the money, he wouldn’t have donated it. He was perfectly happy to see the Opera get the money until he found out Museum Guy didn’t spend the money he said he was going to send. The Opera obviously isn’t harmed. Museum Guy isn’t (except being out the $4000). The Museum, even though it didn’t get the full $40,000 that Museum Guy said he was giving is still up $4000. So Opera Guy’s big objection isn’t that he donated $40,000 to the Opera. It’s that Museum Guy lied to him in making him think he’d donate $40,000 when he only donated $4000. That’s obviously a bad thing and unethical. You shouldn’t lie to people, and shouldn’t make an argument and not honor it. And it might be illegal. But Museum Guy didn’t, it seems, get anything out of the deal. The Opera he likes did, but he didn’t personally get any of that money, did he? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/34 "2013-07-22T04:21:40Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > IMO! The Statute of Frauds would not apply. Still, I would not advise a lawsuit. The museum is presumably a third party beneficiary of the contract and perhaps could bring an action, but suing for “donations” sounds like really bad PR. I’d just expose the SOB to the world as a scumbag. > [@Bricker](#): > > The Statute of Frauds doesn’t reach all contracts, just those in certain categories… Sale of real property, sale of personal property over $500, co-signing of a loan, etc. > > Not sure what else, but I am certain it’s not “all contracts have to be written to be enforceable.” Did a quick google. Looks like you’re both right. I should have googled before posting. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/35 "2013-07-22T05:29:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I said: Well it might have been clearer if you had more clearly labelled the middle quote as coming from the Ethicist columnist and the bottom quote as coming from internet commentors. ## Volokh column link, for reference: [Contracts 101 and "Ethicist" Chuck Klosterman - The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy](http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/21/contracts-101-and-ethicist-chuck-klosterman/) The OP links to the home page. Q for anyone: Say ArtDude decides to sue. How much would it cost him if it was settled out of court? How much would it cost him if it did go to court? How much would the taxpayer shell out in court costs? Roughly. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/36 "2013-07-22T06:23:02Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > “[…] And I never said that bit about “nailed me.”” “How do you explain this _email_ saying precisely those words, that my client has from you, then?” ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/37 "2013-07-22T06:25:18Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > Have you (as opposed to your sweetheart) suffered any damages if I fail to deliver the chocolates, but you deliver the flowers? Does “Not getting laid this Valentine’s” count as damages? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/38 "2013-07-22T08:34:11Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > "Like hell I offered to match a $10,000 annual donation. I said “a thousand” and he must have misheard me. Then every year after that I said “how about the same deal?” and he accepted. It’s not my fault he needs a hearing aid. And I never said that bit about “nailed me.”. That’s the problem with oral contracts: proving them. In this case, though, the “nailed me,” admission was via e-mail. Little tougher to deny. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/39 "2013-07-22T08:39:19Z")
(Omitted) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113/40 "2013-07-22T08:47:43Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > He swindled somebody into doing a good thing, though. I mean, the money that Opera Guy donated actually went to the charity that Museum Guy said it would. It’s not like Opera guy donated and the money actually went to some con artist. I guess I don’t really see who’s harmed. True, if Opera Guy hadn’t made the deal with Museum Guy, he probably wouldn’t have donated the $40,000 to the Opera. But if Opera Guy really had a moral objection to donating the money, he wouldn’t have donated it. He was perfectly happy to see the Opera get the money until he found out Museum Guy didn’t spend the money he said he was going to send. The Opera obviously isn’t harmed. Museum Guy isn’t (except being out the $4000). The Museum, even though it didn’t get the full $40,000 that Museum Guy said he was giving is still up $4000. > > So Opera Guy’s big objection isn’t that he donated $40,000 to the Opera. It’s that Museum Guy lied to him in making him think he’d donate $40,000 when he only donated $4000. That’s obviously a bad thing and unethical. You shouldn’t lie to people, and shouldn’t make an argument and not honor it. And it might be illegal. But Museum Guy didn’t, it seems, get anything out of the deal. The Opera he likes did, but he didn’t personally get any of that money, did he? Return to the Valentine Day analogy offered earlier, though – isn’t the guy whose girlfriend doesn’t get the agreed-upon gift harmed by that breach of promise? Why is the Museum Guy not harmed, then? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nyt-ethicist-and-dueling-donations/664113.md?page=3)