Court Rules a Blood Oath Is Unenforceable 5
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Decision unrelated to blood (Score:5, Informative)
The contract was invalid because there was no consideration [wikipedia.org]. 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 It says "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS".
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent. I had a feeling it was something like that. Lord, I hate how articles on court cases so frequently miss the damned point.
Yes, obviously not a good contract (Score:2)
No statement of parties or terms.
But, then, only so much blood and alcohol I suppose.