Man sues IVF clinic for giving his sperm to gay couples.

"A man sued a Manchester fertility clinic after he said more than nine children were ‘mistakenly conceived’ when his sperm was given to gay couples and single mums against his wishes.

Neil Gaskell, 49, sued CARE Fertility, which is based in Longsight, after he says he was allowed to stipulate that his sperm donation was not to be ‘used by same-sex couples’.

He says he was ‘shocked’ to discover his sperm had been used in nine births involving same-sex couples or single mums and another four to heterosexual couples. In total, he had 13 children he never knew about.

Speaking to the Sunday Mirror, Mr Gaskell insisted he didn’t believe his demands were ‘discriminatory’ but accepted that his traditional views that children should only be brought up by a mother and father were ‘divisive’.

“It’s not about discrimination, it’s not about bigotry,” he told the publication, who reported that he received a five figure settlement after a lengthy legal battle.

“I accept some people will find it uncomfortable but I wanted any children born from my sperm to have a mother and a father," he said."






https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/man-sues-longsight-ivf-clinic-19034711?utm_source=men_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=EM_MENNews_Nletter_DailyNews_News_smallteaser_Image_Story&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter

There is no doubt he was legally right, the clinic disregarded his wishes that they had originally agreed to.
Six months later the donor would not have been allowed to make such demands.

Syl wrote:There is no doubt he was legally right, the clinic disregarded his wishes that they had originally agreed to.
Six months later the donor would not have been allowed to make such demands.

Yup. As long as the contract is legal, they needed to abide by it. If the clinic had issues with his stipulations, they could have told him to take his sperm down the road.

Syl wrote:Neil Gaskell, 49, sued CARE Fertility, which is based in Longsight, after he says he was allowed to stipulate that his sperm donation was not to be ‘used by same-sex couples’.

It's the doctrine of illegal contracts.  If the aims of the contract are illegal, the contract provision is illegal:

Wiki wrote:An illegal agreement under the common law of contract, is one that the court will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end. The illegal end must result from performance of the contract itself. The classic example of such an agreement is a contract for murder.

The issue here is, what if the purpose becomes illegal during the execution of the contract, as a result of the change of law?  It brings up another provision of the law, a defense to a claim of breach of contract: impossibility of performance.

If the contract performance becomes illegal during the duration of the contract, the offensive provision becomes illegal, and hence is impossible to perform:

Levelset wrote:Impossibility of performance is a defense for breach of contract. It occurs when a construction business cannot execute their contract because doing so has become impossible. In situations where performance becomes impossible, if proven, the impossibility of performance will protect a construction business from some, and potentially all, damages stemming from their failure to perform.
https://www.levelset.com/blog/impossibility-of-performance/

Illegality could be triggered when, during the performance, there’s a change in law, or any other regulations making the fulfillment of the intended purpose impossible to perform.  This comes up often in construction contracts, where zoning regulations are constantly changing.

Assuming there is a change in British law prohibiting limitation on same-sex couples having children, the precise provision of the contract prohibiting same-sex couples to use the sperm, is simply illegal.  Hence, it is impossible to perform

"Mr Gaskell donated his sperm in April 2010 - just six months before the Equality Act 2010 came into place.

The act prohibits discrimination against specific protected groups, including same-sex couples."

It would be illegal now for sure, but back then seems it was not, and if the clinic agreed to this mans stipulations that his sperm only be donated to man/woman couples.....well then surely that's the contract.

Syl wrote:"Mr Gaskell donated his sperm in April 2010 - just six months before the Equality Act 2010 came into place.

The act prohibits discrimination against specific protected groups, including same-sex couples."

It would be illegal now for sure, but back then seems it was not, and if the clinic agreed to this mans stipulations that his sperm only be donated to man/woman couples.....well then surely that's the contract.

No, it doesn't make any difference. If, during the course of the contract, the law changes and makes performance impossible, then it is the impossibility of performance.

Impossibility of performance is a defense to fulfillment, rather than an alteration of the contract. Defenses are legal pleadings, raised after the breach, when a Breach of Contract claim is brought. If a court finds impossibility, the contract becomes unenforceable to the extent it is against the law, and the court releases the obligor (clinic) from the responsibility of obeying the clause. Of course, the remainder of the contract stays in effect; only the legally offensive clause is stricken.

Well then surely they should have destroyed his sperm.......or returned it to him.
They broke the contract they had with him, which will be why he sued and won.

Syl wrote:Well then surely they should have destroyed his sperm.......or returned it to him.
They broke the contract they had with him, which will be why he sued and won.

Hmmm...implied contract to return the buggers.  Maybe that's the argument.  But what if the clinic had done that, and the pathetic lil guys died after so much indecision, and shuffling back and forth? Then the suit would be wrongful death of sperm.

Indeed, that would be interjecting things into the contract that were not put there by the parties.  Courts are loath to do that, because it gets into speculating on people's intentions…and all of the what if’s that could arise.

The defense of illegality works its way into consideration by way of impossibility of performance, not reformation of the contract.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Well then surely they should have destroyed his sperm.......or returned it to him.
They broke the contract they had with him, which will be why he sued and won.

Hmmm...implied contract to return the buggers.  Maybe that's the argument.  But what if the clinic had done that, and the pathetic lil guys died after so much indecision, and shuffling back and forth?  Then the suit would be wrongful death of sperm.

Indeed, that would be interjecting things into the contract that were not put there by the parties.  Courts are loath to do that, because it gets into speculating on people's intentions…and all of the what if’s that could arise.

The defense of illegality works its way into consideration by way of impossibility of performance, not reformation of the contract.

I doubt he would have wanted it back anyway, he just didn't want it to go to homosexuals or single people.

It sounds ridiculous that the clinic would agree to such terms anyway, but they did and they were sued....and lost.

The dude won a 5 figure settlement. You would think a lawyer would understand why.

I see enough contracts on a daily basis to know why the law ruled in his favor.

But I'm just a redneck.

Maddog wrote:The dude won a 5 figure settlement. You would think a lawyer would understand why.  

A jury with a burr up it's ass can come up with a toss of the dice.  We need to know the facts and pleadings before we can say where they went. And, it's an art, not a science.

There's always the chance that it was an anti-gay jury. I've heard of horrendous verdicts by Mormon juries in Arizona. Once a woman was beaten up and shackled by two male co-workers, and the jury said it was mere horseplay. Turned out, the jury foreman was a Mormon Bishop.

I'll bet there have been lots of anti-black jury verdicts in Texas.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:The dude won a 5 figure settlement. You would think a lawyer would understand why.  

A jury with a burr up it's ass can come up with a toss of the dice.  We need to know the facts and pleadings before we can say where they went.

It's an art, not a science.

The dude won.

It's not hard to figure out why Walter.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A jury with a burr up it's ass can come up with a toss of the dice.  We need to know the facts and pleadings before we can say where they went.

It's an art, not a science.

The dude won.

It's not hard to figure out why Walter.  

You tell me, know-it-all.

The jury has to go on the facts presented, their personal opinions should not come into play.

The facts are the man agreed to donate his sperm with certain conditions of where it should or should not go to.

I am amazed this was legal, but we are going back over a decade....and thankfully a lot has changed legally re homosexuality in that time.

The law has since changed, but the contract he signed surely cant just be ignored, and to renew it or amend it would that not need his permission?

Syl wrote:The jury has to go on the facts presented, their personal opinions should not come into play.

The facts are the man agreed to donate his sperm with certain conditions of where it should or should not go to.

I am amazed this was legal, but we are going back over a decade....and thankfully a lot has changed legally re homosexuality in that time.

The law has since changed, but the contract he signed surely cant just be ignored, and to renew it or amend it would that not need his permission?

Yup. The contract was legal when it was written. If the law changes after it is written, then the parties no longer attempt to perform it.

The sperm gets given back or destroyed. Or the contract gets amended.

Syl wrote:The jury has to go on the facts presented, their personal opinions should not come into play.

The facts are the man agreed to donate his sperm with certain conditions of where it should or should not go to.

I am amazed this was legal, but we are going back over a decade....and thankfully a lot has changed legally re homosexuality in that time.

The law has since changed, but the contract he signed surely cant just be ignored, and to renew it or amend it would that not need his permission?

]

A jury also has to go on the law. The law is given by the court, and the jury makes decisions as to the facts and how they fit into the law. That is what a verdict is.

The fact is that what the parties agreed to was made illegal a short time later. As a result, the specific clause that the sperm would go only to heterosexual couples was nugatory. It was out of the picture.

What, then, was the reasonable thing to do? Then there are all the contingencies to consider. If the contract is null, what to do with the remaining sperm?

It's simple. The rest of the contract is intact, so follow the rest of the contract. Distribute the sperm, and don't discriminate. It would be breach of contract to do otherwise.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A jury with a burr up it's ass can come up with a toss of the dice.  We need to know the facts and pleadings before we can say where they went.

It's an art, not a science.

The dude won.

It's not hard to figure out why Walter.  

The dude didn't win, Mr. Redneck contract-man. The case was settled:

Dailey News wrote:...a four-year legal battle which was settled out of court. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8776409/Donor-wins-legal-battle-clinic-used-sperm-father-13-children.html

You don't even know the difference, do you Red? A settlement doesn't prove anything, except that the cost of litigation was too much after four years.

You must have been on the commission that wrote the Jim Crow laws.

I'm sure if the law changes as in this case there must be a mutual agreement to destroy or abandon an existing contract.
One side cant just act as if a contract was never entered into, especially if one side holds property of the other.....in this case sperm.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The dude won.

It's not hard to figure out why Walter.  

The dude didn't win, Mr. Redneck contract-man.  The case was settled:

Dailey News wrote:...a four-year legal battle which was settled out of court.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8776409/Donor-wins-legal-battle-clinic-used-sperm-father-13-children.html

You don't even know the difference, do you Red?  A settlement doesn't prove anything, except that the cost of litigation was too much after four years.

You must have been on the commission that wrote the Jim Crow laws.

The dude was compensated.

That's a win. Had the judge thrown it out, he would have lost.

Syl wrote:I'm sure if the law changes as in this case there must be a mutual agreement to destroy or abandon an existing contract.
One side cant just act as if a contract was never entered into, especially if one side holds property of the other.....in this case sperm.

Exactly, the parties revert back to positions before the contract was written, if possible.

In this case, that was easily possible.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:The jury has to go on the facts presented, their personal opinions should not come into play.

The facts are the man agreed to donate his sperm with certain conditions of where it should or should not go to.

I am amazed this was legal, but we are going back over a decade....and thankfully a lot has changed legally re homosexuality in that time.

The law has since changed, but the contract he signed surely cant just be ignored, and to renew it or amend it would that not need his permission?

Yup.  The contract was legal when it was written. If the law changes after it is written, then the parties no longer attempt to perform it.

The sperm gets given back or destroyed. Or the contract gets amended.  

Oh, you're gonna rewrite the contract, Mr. Redneck contract man? They aren't black, numb nutz. You can't tell white people what to do.

Here's the status of the situation. The parties wrote a contract. A provision of the contract was lawfully invalidated. The invalidated portion is stricken. The parties must dutifully follow the rest of the contract...not follow a dumb cracker's predilections.

The rest of the contract called for distribution of (some of) the sperm to the community, without the illegal 'hetero-only' provision. That's what they do.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:I'm sure if the law changes as in this case there must be a mutual agreement to destroy or abandon an existing contract.
One side cant just act as if a contract was never entered into, especially if one side holds property of the other.....in this case sperm.

Exactly, the parties revert back to positions before the contract was written, if possible.  

In this case, that was easily possible.  

No, Mr. Redneck contract man, the parties revert back to their position before the illegal provision was stricken.  The contract is not nullified; the provision is stricken, and the contract goes on.

If the contract were nullified, what is the position the other couples receiving the sperm? Should they be sued too, as not having received sperm under a valid contract.

Of course all of this could have been prevented if the clinic refused to accept his conditions, but they did.

After the law changed, they should have realized that the contract was no longer valid, and had no right to use the sperm anymore. Especially since it was a donation.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Exactly, the parties revert back to positions before the contract was written, if possible.  

In this case, that was easily possible.  

No, Mr. Redneck contract man, the parties revert back to their position before the illegal provision was stricken.  The contract is not nullified; the provision is stricken, and the contract goes on.

Well, apparently not Walter.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, Mr. Redneck contract man, the parties revert back to their position before the illegal provision was stricken.  The contract is not nullified; the provision is stricken, and the contract goes on.

Well, apparently not Walter.  

Why do you say that, Redneck? The settlement called for money damages. As far as we know, the contract goes on to this day.

Put it another way then.

Say someone wants to sell their house but they don't want a black person or a homosexual person buying it.
The law (like in the bad old days) allowed blacks and homosexuals to be discriminated against) but then the law changes, so obviously the estate agent cant legally go ahead with his clients stipulations.
So client will either have to agree to sell his house abiding by the new rule of law or he takes his property off the market....he still has that choice.

Syl wrote:Put it another way then.

Say someone wants to sell their house but they don't want a black person or a homosexual person buying it.
The law (like in the bad old days) allowed blacks and homosexuals to be discriminated against) but then the law changes, so obviously the estate agent cant legally go ahead with his clients stipulations.
So client will  either have to agree to sell his house abiding  by the new rule of law or he takes his property off the market....he still has that choice.

Yep, they are called 'restrictive covenants'.  The seller doesn't have to pull his house off the market, though he can.  It's just that he can't have the restriction.

But that situation is called an 'offer', not a contract of sale.  In the IVF situation, a valid contract was in place, and the contract cannot be reformed except by all parties.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Put it another way then.

Say someone wants to sell their house but they don't want a black person or a homosexual person buying it.
The law (like in the bad old days) allowed blacks and homosexuals to be discriminated against) but then the law changes, so obviously the estate agent cant legally go ahead with his clients stipulations.
So client will  either have to agree to sell his house abiding  by the new rule of law or he takes his property off the market....he still has that choice.

Yep, they are called 'restrictive covenants'.  He doesn't have to pull his house off the market, though he can.  It's just that he can't have the restriction.

But that situation is called an 'offer', not a contract of sale.  In the IVF situation, a valid contract was in place, and the contract cannot be reformed except by all parties.

Restrictive covenants run with the land. You cant contract around them. They can be found unenforceable by a judge or new law though.

In Syls case, both parties would have to agree to the amendment. That didnt happen in this case.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yep, they are called 'restrictive covenants'.  He doesn't have to pull his house off the market, though he can.  It's just that he can't have the restriction.

But that situation is called an 'offer', not a contract of sale.  In the IVF situation, a valid contract was in place, and the contract cannot be reformed except by all parties.

They can be found unenforceable by a judge or new law though.

What the fuck do you think we are talking about, numb nutz?

Maddog wrote:In Syls case, both parties would have to agree to the amendment. That didnt happen in this case.  

It's a fookin' offer, stupid.  What parties?  Until one has an offer and acceptance, it's simply a guy shouting out for sale, for sale!.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They can be found unenforceable by a judge or new law though.

What the fuck do you think we are talking about, numb nutz?

Maddog wrote:In Syls case, both parties would have to agree to the amendment. That didnt happen in this case.  

It's a fookin' offer, stupid.  What parties?  Until one has an offer and acceptance, it's simply a guy shouting out for sale, for sale!.

You are talking about conditions or amendments in a contract. Not covenenants, which run with the land outside of the contract.

And what Quill is missing in Syls case is that the agent and seller have a contract too. It's the listing agreement.

That agreement, which is also a contract, cant state that only certain ethnicities can make offers on or purchase the home
.

in a contract such as this sperm one was, IF the contract becomes "impossible to perform" AND there is no severability of terms written into it the fact that a change in the law renders one condition to be impossible to perform invalidates the WHOLE contract. Therefore the sperm bank was at fault continuing to use his sperm. They should have instead informed him of the impossibility of carrying out the contract in toto and why, and asked him what he wanted to do. If they could not have contacted him they should have suspended such use in total. NO contract has severability of terms unless that is written into the contract at the time of drawing up, and therefor the loss of one term no matter how it happens invalidates the whole.

That's what myself and Maddog have been saying throughout.

Syl wrote:That's what myself and Maddog have been saying throughout.

No, not at all.  Notice that Vic added the condition, 'if the clause is not severable'.

Here, the illegal clause is entirely severable, and the contract goes on without a hitch.  What you and Redneck want is to reform the entire contract because you don't like the striking of the homophobic clause.

Well, it was struck because it is illegal, so the essentially you would be announcing to the court that you want to reform the contract because you don't want to follow the law.  That won't fly very well.  More importantly, the contract survives because striking the offensive clause is not material to the purposes of the Contract (Vic's condition: impossible to perform).

The only way you can get a reformation is to get the clinic to agree.  If they don't agree, tough.  A contract is a contract.

I disagree Quill, UNLESS the contract specifically states that clauses are severable then the WHOLE contract falls if ANY one of the clauses falls, no matter what the reason. Effectively the finding that one clause is illegal and the lack of severability would thus render the whole contract illegal, hence unenforceable and "as if it never existed"


or did the contract state severability??? if so well ok....
finding one clause illegal at a later time does not per se render it "severable", if it was legal at the time of drawing up the contract.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:That's what myself and Maddog have been saying throughout.

No, not at all.  Notice that Vic added the condition, 'if the clause is not severable'.

Here, the illegal clause is entirely severable, and the contract goes on without a hitch.  What you and Redneck want is to reform the entire contract because you don't like the striking of the homophobic clause.

Well, it was struck because it is illegal, so the essentially you would be announcing to the court that you want to reform the contract because you don't want to follow the law.  That won't fly very well.  More importantly, the contract survives because striking the offensive clause is not material to the purposes of the Contract (Vic's condition: impossible to perform).

The only way you can get a reformation is to get the clinic to agree.  If they don't agree, tough.  A contract is a contract.

How can the contract go on without a hitch?
The law changed, the contract therefore is illegal.
Surely it should have either been rewritten within the new law to the agreement of both parties....or just scrapped, but you don't go on selling the goods of one of the parties without their permission.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, not at all.  Notice that Vic added the condition, 'if the clause is not severable'.

Here, the illegal clause is entirely severable, and the contract goes on without a hitch.  What you and Redneck want is to reform the entire contract because you don't like the striking of the homophobic clause.

Well, it was struck because it is illegal, so the essentially you would be announcing to the court that you want to reform the contract because you don't want to follow the law.  That won't fly very well.  More importantly, the contract survives because striking the offensive clause is not material to the purposes of the Contract (Vic's condition: impossible to perform).

The only way you can get a reformation is to get the clinic to agree.  If they don't agree, tough.  A contract is a contract.

How can the contract go on without a hitch?
The law changed, the contract therefore is illegal.
Surely it should have either been rewritten within the new law to the agreement of both parties....or just scrapped, but you don't go on selling the goods of one of the parties without their permission.

Hes wrong and he will never admit it. It would cast doubt on his legitimacy as the resident professor of law.

All of us with just a laymens understanding of law recognize that if a donor's stipulations on how his donation is to be used, because impossible, the contract becomes unenforceable and void.

The donation was given explicitly with limitations that can no longer be met. An amendment to the contract has to made.

I see contracts every day that have a certain closing date as part of the contract. If closing by that date becomes impossible, the contract is amended and BOTH parties agree. You dont just say "oh well, cant fulfill that part of the contract anymore" and carry on. It puts the party that "carried on" in a position to be sued.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, not at all. Notice that Vic added the condition, 'if the clause is not severable'.

Here, the illegal clause is entirely severable, and the contract goes on without a hitch. What you and Redneck want is to reform the entire contract because you don't like the striking of the homophobic clause.

Well, it was struck because it is illegal, so the essentially you would be announcing to the court that you want to reform the contract because you don't want to follow the law. That won't fly very well. More importantly, the contract survives because striking the offensive clause is not material to the purposes of the Contract (Vic's condition: impossible to perform).

The only way you can get a reformation is to get the clinic to agree. If they don't agree, tough. A contract is a contract.

How can the contract go on without a hitch?
The law changed, the contract therefore is illegal.
Surely it should have either been rewritten within the new law to the agreement of both parties....or just scrapped, but you don't go on selling the goods of one of the parties without their permission.

It happens all the time. The law provides a contingency for this...it's called severing the illicit clause. A contract has a severability clause:

Whitman wrote:If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, it shall not affect the enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement. Rather, the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision shall be deemed severed from this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision.
https://whitmanlegalsolutions.com/blog/severability-clause#:~:text=Most%20basic%20severability%20clauses%20state,%E2%80%9Csevered%E2%80%9D%20from%20the%20contract.&text=If%20any%20provision%20of%20this,other%20provision%20of%20this%20Agreement.

When a clause in a contract becomes illegal, the first thing to be done is to ask if the essential transaction (the so-called, 'material terms') is affected. If the purpose of the contract is not affected, the illegal clause can be ‘severed’.

In this case, the transaction is the preservation/distribution of sperm for procreation. The gender identity of the eventual parents is collateral and insignificant, meaning it does not disrupt the essential purpose. So, the law severs the illegal clause, and the contract goes on. The law is loath to interfere with the original intent of the parties.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

How can the contract go on without a hitch?
The law changed, the contract therefore is illegal.
Surely it should have either been rewritten within the new law to the agreement of both parties....or just scrapped, but you don't go on selling the goods of one of the parties without their permission.

Hes wrong and he will never admit it. It would cast doubt on his legitimacy as the resident professor of law.  

All of us with just a laymens understanding of law recognize that if a donor's stipulations on how his donation is to be used,  because impossible, the contract becomes unenforceable and void.  

The donation was given explicitly with limitations that can no longer be met. An amendment to the contract has to made.  

I see contracts every day that have a certain closing date as part of the contract. If closing by that date becomes impossible, the contract is amended and BOTH  parties agree. You dont just say "oh well, cant fulfill that part of the contract anymore" and carry on. It puts the party that "carried on" in a position to be sued.

You could--and probably should--be prosecuted for unauthorized practice of law:

Texas UPL Committee wrote:The UPLC is charged with preventing the unauthorized practice of law. The practice of law involves specialized knowledge and skills. The practice of law by persons who are not authorized to do so frequently results in the loss of money, property or liberty. The State of Texas limits the practice of law to persons who have demonstrated their knowledge of the law through education, who have passed a rigorous examination on the laws of Texas including the rules of ethics, and who have passed a character review. The UPLC is prohibited from giving advisory opinions.

http://www.txuplc.org/

It is a violation of Section 81.101 of the Texas Government Code.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Hes wrong and he will never admit it. It would cast doubt on his legitimacy as the resident professor of law.  

All of us with just a laymens understanding of law recognize that if a donor's stipulations on how his donation is to be used,  because impossible, the contract becomes unenforceable and void.  

The donation was given explicitly with limitations that can no longer be met. An amendment to the contract has to made.  

I see contracts every day that have a certain closing date as part of the contract. If closing by that date becomes impossible, the contract is amended and BOTH  parties agree. You dont just say "oh well, cant fulfill that part of the contract anymore" and carry on. It puts the party that "carried on" in a position to be sued.

You could--and probably should--be prosecuted for unauthorized practice of law:

Texas UPL Committee wrote:The UPLC is charged with preventing the unauthorized practice of law.  The practice of law involves specialized knowledge and skills.  The practice of law by persons who are not authorized to do so frequently results in the loss of money, property or liberty. The State of Texas limits the practice of law to persons who have demonstrated their knowledge of the law through education, who have passed a rigorous examination on the laws of Texas including the rules of ethics, and who have passed a character review.  The UPLC is prohibited from giving advisory opinions.

http://www.txuplc.org/

It is a violation of Section 81.101 of the Texas Government Code.

I'm obligated by law to review any contract presented to me. Lots of people use and write contracts.

Overruled again counselor.

Take your seat.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You could--and probably should--be prosecuted for unauthorized practice of law:



It is a violation of Section 81.101 of the Texas Government Code.

I'm obligated  by law to review any contract presented to me.  Lots of people use and write contracts.  

Overruled again counselor.

Take your seat.  

I'm talking about your criminal activities on this site.  You are not authorized to dispense legal advice on this site, or anywhere else.  You are breaking the law by conducting unauthorized practice of law, offering legal advice on contracts without a license.  Who knows who is reading this and taking notes?

Indeed, as an officer of the Court, I could report you myself.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm obligated  by law to review any contract presented to me.  Lots of people use and write contracts.  

Overruled again counselor.

Take your seat.  

I'm talking about your criminal activities on this site.  You are not authorized to dispense legal advice on this site, or anywhere else.  You are breaking the law by conducting unauthorized practice of law, offering legal advice on contracts without a license.  Who knows who is reading this and taking notes?

Indeed, as an officer of the Court, I could report you myself.

Oh, maybe I should retain some legal council.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm talking about your criminal activities on this site.  You are not authorized to dispense legal advice on this site, or anywhere else.  You are breaking the law by conducting unauthorized practice of law, offering legal advice on contracts without a license.  Who knows who is reading this and taking notes?

Indeed, as an officer of the Court, I could report you myself.

Oh, maybe I should retain some legal council.  

The word is counsel, Mr. Contracts.  A council is an advisory, deliberative, or legislative body of people.

As I think of it, maybe you do need a council.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

How can the contract go on without a hitch?
The law changed, the contract therefore is illegal.
Surely it should have either been rewritten within the new law to the agreement of both parties....or just scrapped, but you don't go on selling the goods of one of the parties without their permission.

It happens all the time.  The law provides a contingency for this...it's called severing the illicit clause.  A contract has a severability clause:

Whitman wrote:If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, it shall not affect the enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement. Rather, the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision shall be deemed severed from this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision.
https://whitmanlegalsolutions.com/blog/severability-clause#:~:text=Most%20basic%20severability%20clauses%20state,%E2%80%9Csevered%E2%80%9D%20from%20the%20contract.&text=If%20any%20provision%20of%20this,other%20provision%20of%20this%20Agreement.

When a clause in a contract becomes illegal, the first thing to be done is to ask if the essential transaction (the so-called, 'material terms') is affected.  If the purpose of the contract is not affected, the illegal clause can be ‘severed’.

In this case, the transaction is the preservation/distribution of sperm for procreation.  The gender identity of the eventual parents is collateral and insignificant, meaning it does not disrupt the essential purpose.  So, the law severs the illegal clause, and the contract goes on.  The law is loath to interfere with the original intent of the parties.

But when the contract was made between the two parties, the clause was not "invalid, illegal or unenforceable", it only became so later after the new laws were brought in.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It happens all the time. The law provides a contingency for this...it's called severing the illicit clause. A contract has a severability clause:



When a clause in a contract becomes illegal, the first thing to be done is to ask if the essential transaction (the so-called, 'material terms') is affected. If the purpose of the contract is not affected, the illegal clause can be ‘severed’.

In this case, the transaction is the preservation/distribution of sperm for procreation. The gender identity of the eventual parents is collateral and insignificant, meaning it does not disrupt the essential purpose. So, the law severs the illegal clause, and the contract goes on. The law is loath to interfere with the original intent of the parties.

But when the contract was made between the two parties, the clause was not "invalid, illegal or unenforceable", it only became so later after the new laws were brought in.

I know. When it became “invalid, illegal or unenforceable”, the question became, what to do about it?

The law handles it this way: (1) did the change alter the material purpose of the contract? And (2), if not, then sever the clause and proceed with the contract without it.

Courts are loath to write anything into the contract. They figure: they are not the parties, nor should they intrude or substitute themselves in place of the parties. Nor will they cancel a contract altogether, which is a form of rewriting...if only to back out of it.

They figure, the clause is the only offensive thing, so delete it and proceed. It's the least intrusive thing the courts can do.

Well in this case the new law definitely did alter the original purpose of the contract.
The donor would not have donated without the stipulation being agreed when he signed up originally to donate.
The cancelation of the contract should have simply been between the clinic and the donor.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Oh, maybe I should retain some legal council.  

The word is counsel, Mr. Contracts.  A council is an advisory, deliberative, or legislative body of people.

As I think of it, maybe you do need a council.

Correct. My phone and tablet autocorrect.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Surely if one party to a contract can no longer keep the agreed conditions of that contract for whatever reason, they are in breach and the contract is void, actions must cease or be re negotiated ? I think I'm in agreement with Maddog and Syl - a bit late though but that's my vote.

Vintage wrote:Surely if one party to a contract can no longer keep the agreed conditions of that contract for whatever reason, they are in breach and the contract is void, actions must cease or be re negotiated ? I think I'm in agreement with Maddog and Syl  - a bit late though but that's my vote.

But, neither party is unable to "keep the agreed" purposes, which is what the court will look for.  Not every "condition" is essential to the contract.  If a condition is minute and collateral, and it becomes void for illegality, it is discarded.

Why terminate the contract, or renegotiate, if the contract still serves its purpose?  Very soon, contracts would become weak and undependable.

Quill is like the Black Knight with his arguments...


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RG1P8MQS1cU