Would Dwight and Angela’s “baby contract” be legal in the U.S.? /u/hekkielol People Person’s Paper People

So, I’m rewatching The Office and get to the whole “baby contract” situation between Dwight and Angela, where Angela agrees to have Dwight’s child if certain conditions are met. I alway found it to be a weird plot line in their very long will they, wont they relationship. I decided to do some research on the matter to see if the mediatior was right to call it a “solid contract”.

Short answer: absolutely not.

In the U.S., such a contract would be unenforceable on numerous grounds:

Public Policy – Courts won’t enforce contracts that go against public morals or human dignity. Forcing someone to conceive or have a baby.

Right to Privacy/Bodily Autonomy – Constitutionally protected rights mean no one can compel you to use your body in a certain way. Griswold v. Connecticut and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

13th Amendment – It would be a form of involuntary servitude, which is banned. Even if the parties signed willingly, a party cannot contract away such basic rights.

No Specific Performance – Courts will not order a person to perform an act that is personal or intimate in nature, such as conceiving a child.

Lack of Consideration – Contracts must have the parties exchange consideration, something of value. “Having a baby” is not good enough consideration.

I know that the mediator called it a donor contract, but still I think Angela would have never won the case. And no damages should be payed by Dwight.

Any lawers in here or people with different opinions?

submitted by /u/hekkielol
[link] [comments]

​r/DunderMifflin So, I’m rewatching The Office and get to the whole “baby contract” situation between Dwight and Angela, where Angela agrees to have Dwight’s child if certain conditions are met. I alway found it to be a weird plot line in their very long will they, wont they relationship. I decided to do some research on the matter to see if the mediatior was right to call it a “solid contract”. Short answer: absolutely not. In the U.S., such a contract would be unenforceable on numerous grounds: Public Policy – Courts won’t enforce contracts that go against public morals or human dignity. Forcing someone to conceive or have a baby. Right to Privacy/Bodily Autonomy – Constitutionally protected rights mean no one can compel you to use your body in a certain way. Griswold v. Connecticut and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. 13th Amendment – It would be a form of involuntary servitude, which is banned. Even if the parties signed willingly, a party cannot contract away such basic rights. No Specific Performance – Courts will not order a person to perform an act that is personal or intimate in nature, such as conceiving a child. Lack of Consideration – Contracts must have the parties exchange consideration, something of value. “Having a baby” is not good enough consideration. I know that the mediator called it a donor contract, but still I think Angela would have never won the case. And no damages should be payed by Dwight. Any lawers in here or people with different opinions? submitted by /u/hekkielol [link] [comments] 

So, I’m rewatching The Office and get to the whole “baby contract” situation between Dwight and Angela, where Angela agrees to have Dwight’s child if certain conditions are met. I alway found it to be a weird plot line in their very long will they, wont they relationship. I decided to do some research on the matter to see if the mediatior was right to call it a “solid contract”.

Short answer: absolutely not.

In the U.S., such a contract would be unenforceable on numerous grounds:

Public Policy – Courts won’t enforce contracts that go against public morals or human dignity. Forcing someone to conceive or have a baby.

Right to Privacy/Bodily Autonomy – Constitutionally protected rights mean no one can compel you to use your body in a certain way. Griswold v. Connecticut and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

13th Amendment – It would be a form of involuntary servitude, which is banned. Even if the parties signed willingly, a party cannot contract away such basic rights.

No Specific Performance – Courts will not order a person to perform an act that is personal or intimate in nature, such as conceiving a child.

Lack of Consideration – Contracts must have the parties exchange consideration, something of value. “Having a baby” is not good enough consideration.

I know that the mediator called it a donor contract, but still I think Angela would have never won the case. And no damages should be payed by Dwight.

Any lawers in here or people with different opinions?

submitted by /u/hekkielol
[link] [comments] 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *