So I was reading through the archives, and I was wondering about a hypothetical situation where all n parties to some contract agree that the contract ought be terminated or amended, but haven’t, for some reasons that probably seemed wise at the time, included any clauses specifically allowing that.
Is there a word for this “we all agree to default on this contract between ourselves” situation? And what is the attitude towards this sort of situation (outside of “well, you obviously should have included Agabanda I/2/3 in the first place”)?
And on the flip side, are there any notable agreements which don’t allow modification by unanimous mutual agreement? Is that even enforceable?
Now, now, let’s not use such ugly language. Voluntary recission is the preferred term.
(There being no way to pronounce ‘default’, in Eldraeic and the active voice, that does not rhyme with ‘scum’.)
But terminology aside, @NHO is correct: the default situation is that a contract can always be modified by a new contract, so y’all can call y’all’s obligator and create a replacement, or just make a very short contract agreeing that the former one is now void by agreement of all parties, and y’all’re done.
Of course, that’s the default (no pun intended) situation.
You are empowered to bind yourself, which includes the power to bind yourself by renouncing the power to unbind yourself. If you include a general non-modification/irrevocability/no backsies clause with no parallel termination clause, you absolutely can write a contract that it’s impossible for you to escape.
The Oath of Feänor is absolutely possible in this 'verse.
Which is why it takes a literal Goddess of Order, Justice, and Death external to the setting to break them. It helps that her sister, the Lady of Chaos, Mercy, and Life is talking to Eru about all tragedies he and his Maiar have sung into his creation, convincing him to let go of that.
…I do recall some mentions of something to the effect of “indenture contracts without a well-specified release clause”, which sounds like slavery, yes.
EDIT: according to Welcome to the Empire, the phrasing is “entering into indentures without well-defined termination provisions” (classified as “legal but should be avoided”), while “chattel slavery” is listed as illegal.
I’m not actually sure where the difference is; it might be a case of consent, or a case of “this is just how we classify Earth-standard modes of employment”, or possibly both, or theoretically neither and actually some third thing.
Oh, the difference is quite key. In chattel slavery, remember, you are quite literally chattel, which is to say, movable property of an owner. People can’t be owned under Imperial law; by definition, people aren’t chattels and vice versa.
An indenture contract, on the other hand, is just the worst way of selling your labor: in advance, on general terms, giving up a great deal of control, and via a tradable contract. People alienate their future labor all the time, albeit usually on much better terms, but there’s no law saying you can’t make a bad deal.
Or, in the case of signing up to an indenture without a solid termination clause (“indefinite contract”), i.e., selling up-to-all your future labor in one go, a really bad deal. One so bad that you might even be able to get out of it by appealing to the courts that you were clearly insane at the time you signed it, on the grounds that no-one sane would have signed such a thing.
But, y’know, your ability to make choices and bind yourself to them is what differentiates you, a sophont, from reptiles and lawn furniture. They won’t take that away from you. No matter how epically stupid and/or catastrophically self-destructive that choice is.
