On Jan 4, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Rick Duncan wrote:
The enforcement against others -- well my mortgage is with a company I never heard of -- a 3d party -- through assignment. And is that not very much the same thing? A body of law that permits enforcement against me by someone I never met or entered into a contract with? I consented to the assignment. They consented to assume the mortgage. Rights between parties who did not contract with each other are enforceable because a body of law says we do not need strict privity. And we could, of course, go on to warranty, and third party beneficiaries, and so on. Again, I think Rick's argument is flawed and wrong -- but still plausible enough to be entertained. I just reject it. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW "The best that education can give [is] the notion that responsibility and delight can coexist." Philip Pullman, crediting his secondary school teacher Enid Jones, in The New Yorker, p. 58 (Dec. 26, 2005 and Jan 2, 2006) |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.