Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 29

= April 29 =

Coureurs des Bois
Can someone please tell me what an average coureur des bois would take with him/her on an expedition? Thanks. -- Drahcir my talk get my skin  01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about "average", nor have I ever heard of a female in the role; however, you might go to Coureur des bois, though there seems to be some internal inconsistencies as to whether it is "coureur des bois" or "coureur de bois". Most of what would be taken, aside from trade goods of their employers, would be the tools to allow them to keep themselves alive: like, for example, hunting and fishing equipment, tinder boxes, salt. . .Bielle 01:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If Toussaint Charbonneau can be considered a Coureur des bois, then Sacajawea could, as well, I suppose, so she would be a female Coureur. Corvus cornix 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is unlikely that she was so considered, or considered herself, but I have no evidence for the negative. Bielle 23:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Would companies abuse if government turned its back...?
Would government still focus its concern on protecting and benefiting labor if labor were not government's primary funding source or would companies and employers find it easier to abuse labor in the absence of labor doing the primary funding and government giving its help and protection to spenders without need to be employed? 71.100.8.252 08:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I could believe that most tax revenues come from workers, not from companies (who have tax shelters and such). However, bribes donations to political candidates and parties come from both companies (and their industry PACs) and employees (and their unions). StuRat 08:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) This is a loaded question. Take a country in which the political system is democratic (truly, not only in name), so that the country is governed by the rule of law without corruption, there is freedom of speech and organization, and people can freely participate in fair elections. If a majority of people in that country earn their living through paid labour, then a government that does not protect labour, and political parties supporting such a government, will quickly lose popular support and be ousted at the next general election (if not sooner). This does not depend on the government's primary funding source; for example, this is also the case if that source consists of the revenues from natural resources, such as oil. If the country is not democratic and run by a coalition of special interest groups, then the labour laws will reflect the interests as perceived by the powers that be – which need not have a clear connection to the government's main sources of income. --Lambiam Talk  08:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * When asked who they work for career government employees who are guaranteed a job through civil service usually reply: "The taxpayer." So who do you think career government employees will say they work for if their salaries are funded by natural resources? "Natural resources" of course. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that career government employees who's salaries come from sales tax would say (or at least think) "The consumer is my ultimate boss." Thus, if you as a citizen have achieved self sustenance - produce everything you consume and pay no or minimal sales tax then career government employees when asked who do they work for will say you are the last person that comes to mind and possibly that they don't even consider you a citizen. (Check out how some of the self-providers who have settled in Alaska are treated.) On the other hand if you spend boo coo dollars on everything from fancy yachts to new houses to vacations in space what do you think they will say (or think)? "That's the guy I'm working for and proud of it too!" So now Classism is not just a theory but a real down to Earth issue practiced and supported by government. Nebraska Bob 11:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Verbal Contract
Hi,

Can you tell me if a verbal agreement is enforceable if agreed upon under the influence of alcohol? The sober party lost money from the other not doing the job.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.193.125 (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
 * We don't give legal advice, but I would nevertheless like to quote Samuel Goldwyn who said that "a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." The alcohol does not make the sober party's case stronger, in my opinion. Skarioffszky 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are not all contracts verbal? I think Goldwyn meant "oral". - Kittybrewster  (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a native speaker of the English language (neither was Samuel Goldwyn), but I thought one of the possible meanings of "verbal" was "spoken, not written". That's also how the original questioner uses it. Skarioffszky 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all oral agreements have the nature of a contract, and in some cases contracts are required by law to be in writing. The precise rules will depend on the jurisdiction, so do not interpret the following as legal advice. In general, in the absence of specific requirements concerning the form of a contract, an oral agreement is just as binding and enforceable as a written agreement. Whether drunkenness can be invoked as an argument that the contract is void or unenforceable depends, again, on the specific laws of the jurisdiction, but usually this is not considered a strong argument as long as the agreement itself, at the time it was reached, was unequivocal. --Lambiam Talk  11:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Kittybrewster's comment, actually not all contracts are verbal: see implied in fact contract and implied in law contract. An example (I think) is that when you order food in a restaurant, you have entered into a contract to pay for it, although probably none of that contract was put into words.  Algebraist 18:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * IANAL, but I think that when you use words to order food, those words are taken as implying that you agree to pay for it, and that would be a reasonable inference for the supplier to make. Even a tick in a box on a motel breakfast menu is considered to be a "word" in this context.  In some (usually formal) contexts, it's necessary to say "oral" to distinguish between speaking and writing.  But Skarioffszky is right, "verbal" is usually taken to mean speaking as opposed to writing.  Goldwyn's pun could be criticised for saying it's written on paper when clearly it's not.  But that would gut the point of it, and reveal the gutter as singularly lacking in the last vestige of humour.  Leave my friend Sam alone! :)  He did a lot to enrich our great language.  --  JackofOz 00:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing to consider when lamenting a drunken evening of ill-advised contractual arranging is that contracts with patently unreasonable provisions will generally not be enforced (or at least have those provisions struck). If you drunkenly promise to kill yourself or to be someone's slave, no court will enforce that promise.  I'm not sure what the legal name for this sort of exception would be, but I've read about it on occasion.  --TotoBaggins 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See e.g., unconscionability, contract of adhesion, duress, undue_influence, unenforceable contract, incapacity, others. dr.ef.tymac 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Difference in breach
Hello, with a law contract can you please explain to me the difference between a breach of a condition, and a breach of a warranty? Cant find condition in wikipedia. Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.193.125 (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC).


 * A generic term is breach of contract. The term breach of warranty refers, more specifically, to a situation in which something (goods, or services) was sold, but failed to meet agreed or reasonable expectations. It is not used if the contract does not have the nature of a sales agreement. Usually a contract may specify certain conditions, so if a party violates a condition to which they are contractually bound, this form of breaching the contract takes the form of breaching one of its conditions. For example, my neighbour may agree to pay me money if I agree to take trumpet playing lessons and additionally to not do my exercises or otherwise play the trumpet before 10 o'clock on Sunday mornings. My not playing that early is one of the conditions of the contract, and should I start my etudes on a Sunday morning at quarter past nine, I breach that condition. --Lambiam Talk  12:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Anonymous IP, the distinction applies variously in different contexts, and is sometimes too subtle to be of note outside academia. One important application, however, is in the context of a sales agreement between a buyer and a seller of goods (I'm assuming this is what you're asking about, If this is homework, stop reading now.).

Here is an extremely simplified illustration that should help clarify this: The reason this is important is because, sometimes, buyers may find the same or similar goods at a cheaper price, and then try to get out of a contract in order to buy the goods from someone else. This is called opportunistic rejection. (see also Legal disclaimer, Uniform_Commercial_Code, Key Topics in the Uniform Commercial Code(not very good), and Warranty). dr.ef.tymac 15:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * buyer contracts with seller for goods
 * seller is obligated to deliver, and buyer is obligated to pay upon reciept
 * when all goes right, the contract is said to have been performed and everyone is happy
 * if seller delivers non-conforming goods this is one way things can go wrong
 * if a bitter dispute ensues, seller will try to argue it was only a breach of warranty; buyer will try to argue it was a breach of condition
 * the reason they will argue differently is because it affects the remedy that a judge will impose if they cannot resolve their dispute:
 * breach of warranty generally means the seller has a right to try to cure the defect by delivering conforming goods, and then the buyer still has to pay the contract price
 * breach of condition generally means the buyer can repudiate the contract, and reject seller's delivery with no further obligation (other than to return the goods)
 * for extremely complicated situations, the distinction can be difficult to make, but result in a major loss depending on how it is resolved

"Once more into the breach..." StuRat 16:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Appendicitis
Am I right in thinking that appendicitis is becoming more unusual in UK? If so, I wonder why? Kittybrewster  (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Appendicitis has a link to the following: Hugh TB, Hugh TJ, "Appendicectomy — becoming a rare event?" MJA 2001; 175: 7-8. I can't tell you if it answers your question, or even deals with the UK, as I can't get the link to work. The title is suggestive, however.(I wonder if the spelling of "Appendectomy" is the problem with the link.) Bielle 13:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * MJA is The Medical Journal of Australia, so it probably doesn't have much to do with the UK. PubMed doesn't have an abstract.  However, I did find a copy of it online (cached link).  Here's a quote: "It is likely that the fall in appendicectomy rates is because of more accurate diagnosis, possibly associated with the use of ultrasound examination, computed tomography and laparoscopy, and to a change in surgical attitudes to avoid "unnecessary" operations."  --Joelmills 14:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just what I was going to suggest. Appendectomies were once almost done as a preventative measure.  That is, anyone who showed any possible symptoms had the operation done "just in case".  I believe that after they cut the patient open and found no evidence of appendicitis, they still removed it, both in case they were wrong and in case it became a problem in the future.  A cynic might also argue that this was a good way to pad the doctor's pockets. StuRat 16:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The MJA link is working for me now. As to the spelling, appendicectomy is an alternate form of the word common in Britain and Australia. --Anon, April 29, 2007, 21:09 (UTC).


 * Not to nitpick, but I'd argue that appendectomy is the later alternative to the original (and correct) appendicectomy. It's formed from the word appendix.  There's no such bodily organ as the append.  :)  JackofOz 00:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps we should append one. :-) StuRat 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lord Hanuman
Please let me know the botanical and English name for the leaf(Known as Aakda in Hindi offered to Lord Hanuman. Is it poisonous? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.71.137.235 (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC).


 * It's possible the plant you are referring to is Calotropis gigantia, although the common name for this seems to be "akda," rather than "aakda" (I don't know if that makes a difference). According to this, Calotropis gigantia has a poisonous sap. Carom 16:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Calotropis gigantea -- I came to the same conclusion. And this page warns pretty seriously that it's poisonous. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Arlo & Janis
Can anyone explain to me what Jules Feiffer has to do with today's Arlo & Janis? Dismas |(talk) 12:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be an homage to one of Feiffer's more famous cartoons, see here. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Or go to Feiffer's web page and wait while "A Dance to . . . My Very Own Web Site" comes up. Bielle 13:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I get it now.  Thank you both.  Dismas |(talk) 13:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Homework (legal liability for motorbike)
Hi, i have to do a school project on basic law and I have listed one of my questions below.

This is not a real case so just looking for an opinion to help me get started with some legal terms. My teacher says it is just an interpretation so nothing binding. Thanks very much.

Question 4: One day during a break in lectures Sam offers to sell his ‘restored historic motorbike’ to Tim, saying the offer would remain open until last lecture on Friday. Sam then sells the motorbike to Jill who is seen by a reliable witness falling off it an hour later. She claims it is her bike. Tim, suspecting that Sam has already sold the bike to Jill ‘accepts’ the offer prior to the Friday deadline. Briefly explain the principles likely to apply in a Court Case if Tim sues. Will he be successful? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.193.125 (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
 * IANAL, but from my layman's perspective, Sam didn't specify that he wouldn't sell the bike to someone else, it was just implied when he said that the offer would remain valid until Friday. I doubt that helps you out though...  Dismas |(talk) 13:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While I'm still not a lawyer... I thought these links might be helpful: List of legal doctrines. It's a relatively short list that you should be able to go through and pick out the ones that you think apply.  Dismas |(talk) 13:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no consideration for the implied promise to sell the bicycle. A contract consists of offer + acceptance + consideration + an intention to create legal relations. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If he purports to accept and the vendor says the offer is no longer open, his maximum potential damages are the difference between the actual value and the agreed price. Which will be a question of evidence. And could well be nil. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Specific performance, Option contract and How to ask a question (above). dr.ef.tymac 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do a Google search for "Dickinson v. Dodds" This hypo is very close to that case. GreatManTheory 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Economic class
I'm looking for information on economic class, not socio-economic class or social class where the Wikipedia article on economic class currently points. As an example of what I am looking for consider one dentist, who operates a free clinic funded by donations and grants while a former classmate operates out of a Manhattan office which serves the financially elite. Both dentists belong to all of the same fraternal and social clubs but one is poor (by comparison) and drives and eight year old ford compact while the other is rich and his Bentley is chauffeur driven. They are friends with different tastes but believe themselves to be in the same social class although not in the same economic class.  Clem  14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that economic class and social class are so interwoven that they can't be separated like that. In your example the rich person likely is a member of expensive private golf clubs, goes on vacation in Paris or other expensive locations, has a yacht, and attends black tie charity events.  All of this allows the rich person to move in completely different social circles than the poor person. StuRat 16:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You might, conceivably, find what you are looking for in the work of the German sociologist, Max Weber, particularly in the three component theory of stratification, with its emphasis on the importance of social status and political affiliations, as well as social class. In the example you have given, differing interpretations of the importance of wealth and income has placed these people in distinct economic strata within society, though they may enjoy the same status in terms of background, education, profession and taste. Weber develops these ideas in Economy and Society, published in 1914. I suppose if the two friends had differing religious backgrounds, and thus a differing set of ethics and values, you might find some clue to the paths they have pursued in life in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber's great seminal monograph. Clio the Muse 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Homework (gambling and the law)
Thank you everyone for helping me.

I have another question that I cannot find any examples for and have no idea. Please give me some general ideas again! I am really stuck.

Question 5: Tom and Mary were happily married. Tom however tended to spend almost all his pay packet at a casino on his way home. Mary insisted that Tom agreed to pay her $500 per week for housekeeping. The following week Tom forgets about the agreement and looses all his pay at the casino. What are Mary’s legal rights?


 * Hi, Anonymous, I seem to have answered one of your earlier questions prior to reading all of the Reference Desk board and noticing that you seem to be using this as a free homework-help service. If you want a hint, consider that T and M are married, and whether that might affect their rights relative to one another under contract law. Consider also that T may be in violation of the 2005 marital equanimity act, which strictly prohibits casino gambling with marital property. Consider also that T may be able to plead temporary loss of sanity because of his addiction. Consider also that M may have violated the parole evidence rule by insisting instead of making an "re-optionable offer" under the Uniform Commercial Code. Consider also the terms "offer" "acceptance" and "consideration" that were in your course materials.

Consider also that what you are doing may constitute academic misconduct.

Consider also that I and others may have deliberately given you some misleading information, because people should be punished for not doing their own homework. dr.ef.tymac 15:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do a Google search for Morone v. Morone (Court of Appeals of New York, 1980) for case law on what sort of contracts couples can enter into. GreatManTheory 16:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear dr.ef.tymac
I appreciate your help although sarcasm really isn't nice.

I asked for help on 3 of 45 questions that I have. This is only a small percentage of what I need to do. I am working really really hard and clearly labelled my headings as homework so I was honest from the start. I dont have anyone to help me so if you feel I am taking advantage of this wonderful site then do not reply to questions that clearly state are homework.


 * Ok, If I was mistaken regarding your objectives, or otherwise unfair to you, I sincerely apologize. As far as I saw, though, only two questions were clearly identified as homework, and I had no idea how far you were planning to take this line of questioning. I appreciate your candor and efforts to clarify. For future reference, if you have any other issues with me, individually, and not the RefDesk in general, please post that to my user talk page instead. Again, please accept my apology if I over-reacted out of prejudice. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Oh yeah, another thing, I wasn't joking about the possible misinformation, you definitely got some answers up there that you will need to check against your course materials ... but then that applies to all material within Wikipedia, right? General_disclaimer. dr.ef.tymac 16:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: If you are the same person who asked about "Difference in Breach" (making that 3 4 out of 45 questions?) you might also want to google search "Jacob & Youngs v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)". dr.ef.tymac 18:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

GreatManTheory you are a genius!!
Thank you so much