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.
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.
Meh. I’d just tell the story to everyone I know. Eventually he would hear that his dickishness was common knowledge.
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”.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
I’ll go along with this part of the post.
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.
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?
Did a quick google. Looks like you’re both right. I should have googled before posting.
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.
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.
“How do you explain this email saying precisely those words, that my client has from you, then?”
Does “Not getting laid this Valentine’s” count as damages? 
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.
(Omitted)
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?