if you are told lies to sign a contract, how is it valid??

El_Kabong

just a thought i had...certain ppl say about the troops that they signed the contract so they get what they are given...but these same ppl will admit recruiters lie to get them to sign the contract...that they tell them whatever they think will get them to sign...so, then, how is the 'contract' valid if they were pretty much lied to and tricked into signing it??

baraka

El_Kabong wrote:

just a thought i had...certain ppl say about the troops that they signed the contract so they get what they are given...but these same ppl will admit recruiters lie to get them to sign the contract...that they tell them whatever they think will get them to sign...so, then, how is the 'contract' valid if they were pretty much lied to and tricked into signing it??

Hey Kabong!

I think it is dependent on what the contract states. Sadly, folks sign contracts everyday without understanding the legal ramifications, either by being misled, or lack of understanding the language of the contract. I think once the contract is signed, it is valid, even if the individual was misled or simply didn't understand it. It's very important to understand what you are signing. Unfortunately, it seems one needs a lawyer sometimes to translate the meaning and we all know how expensive that can be. :eek:

sweet adeline

i'm no lawyer, but i think it becomes null and void.

sonicreducer

willy korn signed a contract with clemson to play quarterback. this kid is a dual threat. like seriously, a gunslinger,... they promised him he would start, which obviously persuaded him among other promises. he even graduated high school early to learn the program. he is not listed as the starting quarterback this fall, though,...

this shit happens all the time. we should be attacking the people who make the contracts, not the recruiters or the signees,...

what do we accomplish otherwise?


EDIT: i would assume the contract voided at this point, btw,...

robis726

that would be fraudulent inducement...
http://www.medlawplus.com/askalawyer/contracts/index.tpl?qq=2

El_Kabong

sonicreducer wrote:

we should be attacking the people who make the contracts, not the recruiters or the signees,...

what do we accomplish otherwise?

i'm not so sure i agree w/ you on this one...at least for the recruiters...if they are knowingly lying to ppl to get them sent to a war based on more lies and bullshit....i don't find them that innocent.

if i set girls up w/ my friend who slipped them ruffies(sp) and raped them and i knew he was gonna do this...even if i don't rape them myself i am an accomplice in the act, right?

and i'm not trying to pigeonhole all recruiters, just the ones who knowingly trick ppl into signing up for this shit

gue_barium

robis726 wrote:

that would be fraudulent inducement...
http://www.medlawplus.com/askalawyer/contracts/index.tpl?qq=2

Fraudulent inducement is an independent tort in that it requires proof of facts separate and distinct from the breach of contract. It normally “occurs prior to the contract and the standard of truthful representation placed upon the defendant is not derived from the contract,” i.e., “whether the defendant was truthful during the formation of the contract is unrelated to the events giving rise to the breach of contract.”


Fraud in the inducement requires proof of: (1) a false statement of material fact;(2) that the defendant knew or should have known was false; (3) that was made to induce the plaintiff to enter into a contract; and (4) that proximately caused injury to the plaintiff when acting in reliance on the misrepresentation

gue_barium

From the standard contract for all enlistees of the Armed Forces of the United States:

9. FOR ALL ENLISTEES OR REENLISTEES: Many laws,regulations, and military customs will govern my conduct and require me to do things a civilian does not have to do. The following statements are not promises or guarantees of any kind. They explain some of the present laws affecting the Armed Forces which I cannot change but which Congress can change at any time. a. My enlistment is more than an employment agreement. As a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, I will be:
(1) Required to obey all lawful orders and perform all assigned duties.
(2) Subject to separation during or at the end of my enlistment. If my behavior fails to meet acceptable military standards, I may be discharged and given acertificate for less than honorable service, which may hurt my future job opportunities and my claim for veteran's benefits.
(3) Subject to the military justice system, which means, among other things, that I may be tried by military courts-martial.
(4) Required upon order to serve in combat or other hazardous situations.
(5) Entitled to receive pay, allowances, and other benefits as provided by law and regulation. b. Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document. c. In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six
(6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President ofthe United States.

MichaelMcKevin

You sign in agreement with what's on the paper... not what you're verbally told

macgyver06

El_Kabong wrote:

just a thought i had...certain ppl say about the troops that they signed the contract so they get what they are given...but these same ppl will admit recruiters lie to get them to sign the contract...that they tell them whatever they think will get them to sign...so, then, how is the 'contract' valid if they were pretty much lied to and tricked into signing it??

verbal lies are acceptable here.

jeffbr

Anyone who trusts a salesperson without reading a contract is setting themselves up. Recruiters are nothing more than salespeople.

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

Fraudulent inducement is an independent tort in that it requires proof of facts separate and distinct from the breach of contract. It normally “occurs prior to the contract and the standard of truthful representation placed upon the defendant is not derived from the contract,” i.e., “whether the defendant was truthful during the formation of the contract is unrelated to the events giving rise to the breach of contract.”


Fraud in the inducement requires proof of: (1) a false statement of material fact;(2) that the defendant knew or should have known was false; (3) that was made to induce the plaintiff to enter into a contract; and (4) that proximately caused injury to the plaintiff when acting in reliance on the misrepresentation

Both of these definitions, btw, have more to do with commercial law than anything else.

chopitdown

the biggest reason that the contract is not null and void is b/c in the contract you sign is this wording. In other words know that whatever anyone told you has the possibility to be BS.

"The agreements in this section and attached annex(es) are all the promises made to me by the Government.
ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE HAS PROMISED ME IS NOT VALID AND WILL NOT BE HONORED."

Abookamongstthemany

jeffbr wrote:

Anyone who trusts a salesperson without reading a contract is setting themselves up. Recruiters are nothing more than salespeople.

True but I don't think the average young, inexperienced and perhaps naive person who signs looks at them this way. I mean hell, they aren't even considered mature enough to buy beer but we'll trust them make these kind of huge decisions knowing how impressionable and impulsive they often are. It seems like taking advantage of them in more ways than one.

know1

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

True but I don't think the average young, inexperienced and perhaps naive person who signs looks at them this way. I mean hell, they aren't even considered mature enough to buy beer but we'll trust them make these kind of huge decisions knowing how impressionable and impulsive they often are. It seems like taking advantage of them in more ways than one.

Kind of like letting them go to college and rack up huge student loans.

know1

By the way, what lies are being told? Is each recruiter telling the same lies?

even flow?

Are they lies? Education? See the world? Play a live version of a video game? Sign out in a box? Seems like they are preaching everything in a truthful kind of fashion.

But I do see the trouble with your government using you in an illegal situation that wasn't spelled out properly for you when the ink dried.

Abookamongstthemany

know1 wrote:

Kind of like letting them go to college and rack up huge student loans.

No, not like that at all...

dg1979us

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

True but I don't think the average young, inexperienced and perhaps naive person who signs looks at them this way. I mean hell, they aren't even considered mature enough to buy beer but we'll trust them make these kind of huge decisions knowing how impressionable and impulsive they often are. It seems like taking advantage of them in more ways than one.

It might be taking advantage of them, but it isnt a fraudulent contract.

know1

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

No, not like that at all...

I know what you're saying, but I meant from the standpoint of having a young person make a decision that has big ramifications to their life. Those student loan papers don't exactly spell things out in big, bold terms.

gue_barium

dg1979us wrote:

It might be taking advantage of them, but it isnt a fraudulent contract.

The kicker is in proving that the Iraq war is illegal. In that case, those soldiers refusing deployment on the grounds the war is illegal, would not be in breach of the contract.