Having posted a Part 1, I feel compelled to follow up with a Part 2.  Makes sense, right?  We previously considered reason in deciding that something is better than nothing when it comes to contracts.  Kind of a no-brainer, eh?  However, one thing to keep in mind about Jane's previous situation as outlined below, is that a written agreement isn't required for her to recover from John for the money she loaned him.  So while having it in writing is better, it isn't necessary.

    For this Part 2, like Fridugis, we'll consider an appeal to authority.  As any good Eighth Century philosopher worth his salt would do, Fridugis relied rather heavily on an appeal to authority, in his case religious text, in determining that "nothing" was a rather grand sort of "something."  For our purposes, we'll appeal to the Laws of the State of New York.

    I have to thank Jane for facilitating this blog again, as she called me this morning with a new question.  Jane, like my family, is into horses.  She's been looking for a barn and horses to fill it with.  She thought she found the perfect place and had made a deal with John, the current owner.  They worked out the details, and even shook hands on it.  That was last week, and now John won't return her phone calls.  Jane recalled from our previous conversation that oral agreements, for the most part, can be enforced and so she wanted to sue John to get the barn.

    Unfortunately for Jane, this is where our appeal to authority works against her.  Although oral agreements are enforceable, there are exceptions to this rule which fall under the "Statute of Frauds."  Originally a Seventeenth Century Act of the English Parliament, the "Statute of Frauds" is codified in various sections of the laws of New York.  For Jane's current dispute we must look to New York's General Obligations Law, in particular section 5-703, which requires that any contract for the sale of land be in writing.  Sorry Jane.  In this instance, something isn't just better than nothing, it's absolutely required.  

    Welcome to my blog.  On occasion things may be a little "off topic" in here, but hopefully you'll find them informative, and maybe even entertaining.  

    Recently, I've done a number of consults that, at least in my mind, touch upon metaphysics and the existential ramifications of some agreements.  In particular, (and perhaps unfortunately for me) I've found myself tethered lately to the Eighth Century, (Yes, I know, this far predates Existentialism) and specifically to Fridugis' ON THE BEING OF NOTHING AND SHADOWS.  

    When I first came across this work in school, it provided no end of amusement for me.  In it, Fridugis adresses the question "Is nothing something or not?"  While he concludes through reason and appeal to authority that nothing is in fact a great and distinguished something, in the context of my consults I find myself advising others to the contrary.

    Jane asked me the other day if she had a case against her ex-boyfriend John.  It appears that over the course of several months, she had loaned him, in the aggregate, a substantial sum of money.  Of course, there was nothing in writing between the parties.  Did she have a case?  Absolutely.  Would she be able to prove her case?  Specifically, that John owed her the money because it was given as a loan?  Much more difficult.  

    So my advice, based upon reason, is that when "loaning" money, particularly to family or friends, make sure you get it in writing.  Otherwise, you should be prepared to have your loan considered a gift or find yourself explaining to somebody in a black robe how it wasn't.  At the very least, don't take cash out of the bank and hand it over like Jane did.  Write John a check.  Put the word "loan" on the memo line.  That, at least, is something -- and in the law, something in writing is always better than nothing.