First of all, none of those people were in love. Disgusting.
The issue is whether there was a legally enforceable bilateral contract.
For a contract to be formed, there must be mutual assent, consideration, a legal capacity to enter into a contract, and no legal prohibition preventing the formation of the contract. To be succinct, I will assume that prostitution is legal in Germany and skip the last two elements.
Mutual consent requires an intent to be bound and a sufficiently definite agreement.
As evidenced from the husband's offer to pay $2,500 for the services agreed upon, and then allowing his neighbor to perform (as he boinked his wife) there was an intent to be bound. There is insufficient information to determine the terms of the agreement, whether the $2500 was to be paid for the impregnation alone, the boiking alone, or a combination of the two. It will be assumed that the benefit of the bargain was stated as only impregnation and not the service of boinking. Assuming this was as stated in the contract, this element is met.
Consideration requires either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee.
The consideration for the husband is assumed to be only the impregnation of his wife. The compensation for the neighbor is $2,500. This element is met.
Mutual assent and consideration are conjunctive elements, and they were both satified, thus a contract was formed.
The issue is whether there was a breach of contract.
Breach is defined as a failure to perform the contractual duty. Assuming once again that this duty was the impregnation and not the boiking, there was indeed a breach. The wife was not impregnated by the neighbor and thus consideration was not given.
The neighbor may have an unjust enrichment claim, but it's doubtful, and I have to study for Torts now.
__________________
I <3 forced induction.
|
