Is there a right to contract oneself, or one’s dependents, into servitude? The closest common examples I can think of are jurisdictions where prostitution is semi-legalized or legalized, jurisdictions where minors can work on behest of their guardian, and military service in remote areas. All these imply some ability to bind one’s future self, or a dependent’s future self, into a situation of constrained freedom. And of an authority that recognizes and enforces such. Historically, debtor’s prisons with penal labor effectively enabled that in most countries, and which is still the practice in some. The clearest rationale for the existence of such a right is in any country with a formal security classification system. A person holding a security clearance becomes subject to certain limits on their future actions, beyond that of that of the regular citizenry, which they cannot unilaterally remove even after leaving the position that required it. This appears to be quite close to contracting oneself into an indefinite, limited, servitude.
NO (mostly). Servitude means that the employer, or owner of the indenture, or whatever, can use physical force to make the indentee carry out the work given. If the indentee runs away they can be arrested and forcibly returned. This is distinct from the law of contracts. If Alice agrees to provide labour for Bob and subsequently fails to fulfil the contract then Alice may have to pay damages, but that is all. Even in cases of crminial fraud where Alice never meant to provide the labour in the first place, the penalty is defined by law, and would not be the provision of the contracted labour. As the OP notes, military service is generally an indenture-style contract; desertion is a crime. However the other party in that case is the government acting under law rather than a third party acting in their own self-interest. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits all forms of servitude.
Involuntary servitude is illegal in Spain/Europe Has been for more than 100 years. Once an employee resigns their only obligation is to work the contracted (or statutory) notice period or pay the employer the equivalent salary.
I think you're viewing the use of pronouns and contracts wrong. You are speaking to the Licensee, not some third person. So you would say "You agree to give us all your bases", not "The]y agree to give us all your bases". If you were to use a third person pronoun in describing what the other person is gonna do and what you'll do for them, calling the Licensee "they" is positively confusing, and more likely to cause problems. I hope they see my point.
Silence itself does not generally imply consent, but in the context of a history of transacting, silence in the face of continued actions by the other side can indicate consent. Here's a fun little example (Saint John Tug Boat Co. Ltd. v. Irving Refining Ltd., [1964] S.C.R. 614). The plaintiff was a tug boat company who was providing tug services for the defendant who operated an oil refinery. The large crude oil tankers coming into the refinery needed tug guidance and the plaintiff provided this. There was an undisputed verbal acceptance of a written offer for services from June 13, 1961 to July 13, 1961. The agreement was expressly extended twice, each for two weeks, into August 1961. No further authorization for extension was made. However, the plaintiff continued to provide tug service for the incoming tankers and continued sending monthly invoices to the defendant until February 1962. The defendant did not pay and denied liability for all charges after the middle of August 1961. The trial judge said: I find that the defendant knew that the Ocean Rockswift continued after August 1, 1961, in commission on call to assist and did assist the large tankers during the period in question, and that the plaintiff expected payment on a rental basis for its being kept in commission. The defendant had ample opportunity to notify the plaintiff that it did not accept any liability on that basis, but did not do so. The defendant acquiesced in the tug being so employed. The Supreme Court of Canada quoted from Anson on Contracts: So if A allows B to work for him under such circumstances that no reasonable man would suppose that B meant to do the work for nothing, A will be liable to pay for it. The doing of the work is the offer; the permission to do it, or the acquiescence in its being done, constitutes the acceptance. And from Williston on Contracts: Silence may be so deceptive that it may become necessary for one who receives beneficial services to speak in order to escape the inference of a promise to pay for them. But the Supreme Court of Canada clarified: ... mere failure to disown responsibility to pay compensation for services rendered is not of itself always enough to bind the person who has the benefit of those services. The circumstances must be such as to give rise to an inference that the alleged acceptor has consented to the work being done on the terms upon which it was offered before a binding contract will be implied. This answer shows how silence can play a role from a pure common law contract perspective, without considering equitable principles. sjy's answer correctly adds that silence can be relevant to various equitable doctrines.
it's not illegal to sign a contract that demands illegal things, however, such a contract, in general, is called an illegal contract. Illegal contracts are null and void. Contracts that violate public policy never have force in the first place. A contract can't force people to declare lies under oath or demand them to murder someone. Thus, a contract demanding such is illegal. As a result, such a clause would not just be unenforceable, it might void the entire contract wholesale if it is not severable. In the least, any clause demanding illegal acts was null and void ab initio, and never was valid. void contracts in law germany explicitly makes contracts void that are &quot;Sittenwidrig&quot; in § 138 BGB and also illegal ones in § 134 BGB Declarations to the Agentur für Arbeit are made under threat of perjury, and thus lying is illegal. It is also Sittenwidrig. This makes the provision void. Murder is illegal, inciting to murder someone is illegal, and so a contract to murder someone for pay is void. Such a contract also is Sittenwidrig. Selling the right to ask to marry your daughter per see isn't illegal, but it is Sittenwidrig and as such the contract is void. california judges refer to such contracts as illegal contracts, defining this as a test where making non-enforcement of such a contract something of public interest: It is in the public interest that people tell the truth to the unemployment office, so a contract demanding you to lie is illegal. It is illegal to lie on the stand (perjury), and thus the contract is illegal. Conspiracy However, the contract can also be evidence of criminal activity in itself: It manifests the will of two parties to commit an illegal act. That is the core of a conspiracy charge. Conspiracy is illegal and usually a felony. germany: Conspiracy to commit a crime is §30 STGB
Yes Companies can own companies - that’s what subsidiaries are. On a practical level, you know this is true because you actually have an example. Companies House would not have allowed its registration (barring error) if it was illegal. Why can’t it open a bank account? Banks (or any other business) can choose who they will and won’t do business with. Unless it’s discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic, it’s not illegal. Since juridical persons don’t have protected characteristics (apart from nationality) it’s virtually impossible to illegally discriminate against them.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. One can be served according to the state law or: (2) doing any of the following: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized None of those would apply to your facts. Thus you would have to find some jurisdiction that would allow service of process under your fact. I dare say that none will and that due process would come into play. In NJ, due process applies and service may be made (1) Upon a competent individual of the age of 14 or over, by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual personally, or by leaving a copy thereof at the individual's dwelling place or usual place of abode with a competent member of the household of the age of 14 or over then residing therein, or by delivering a copy thereof to a person authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process on the individual's behalf; It has to be the current place of abode.
This was at least a feature of Athenian law. In the Aristarchus of Isaeus (early 4th century BC), it is recorded that &quot;the law expressly forbids any child—or woman—to contract for the disposal of more than a bushel of barley&quot;. This is a sufficiently ancient and transmissible principle of law that there well may have been Egyptian and Sumerian analogs. You might get the details that you seek by focusing on medieval English common law.