I hope it’s not retroactive because I’d probably be fucked by the countless terms and conditions I’ve mindlessly accepted.
I would like to imagine that it goes off the rules in some books about power imbalances. So the more power or authority an entity has on you the more they are bound, but also the opposite meaning the less you are bound.
Meaning if they break a contract their entire institution crumbles or something, and if you break it then maybe you lose a dollar in the vending machine or something.
Including oaths of office? Politicians would be miserable
You’re still going to get issues because of misunderstandings and loopholes.
“I vow that my hot dogs will be All Beef.”
All Beef is a brand name, the vow doesn’t mean what most of the customers think it means.
As for laws, what does it mean that laws are bound by magic? Are you bound to a law you didn’t agree to follow? Are you bound to laws you never knew existed? What happens if you make a promise to do something that is actually illegal? How does the magic resolve that?
I think we would see a lot more carefully-worded legalese and a lot more loopholes snuck into contracts. Contract lawyers would see a surge in business since many would want to consult a professional before signing anything.
Good, the president of the Untied States would have to obey the law
People would be more careful about signing terms of service
People would be more careful about signing terms of service
Oops, accidentally clicked “I agree” to Disney’s TOS. Now I’m bound to offer my first-born child as a sacrifice 💀
Christians would have to get a lot more serious about the commandment to swear no oaths
Since a lot of contracts are wrote so lopsided, someone is really getting screwed. Since there’s no way out.
A lot less civil litigation.
But oddly, a LOT more lawyers to work out the precise wording of things.
Oversold flights wouldn’t happen as often.
People wouldn’t bail on restaurant reservations at the last minute.
I would have to learn very quickly not to overpromise/overcommit myself 🙃
Why would oversold flights happen less often? The contract wouldn’t even have to change. The contract is that they’ll fly you from A to B, but maybe not in the plane that you expected.
They are supposed to fly you from A to B on a given day at a given time. If they mess that up, they’re supposed to make alternate accommodations. The current trend of intentionally overselling flights and then having to force bump a passenger because no one took the bait money is what I would like to see be not ever a thing companies try to get away with.
They are supposed to fly you from A to B on a given day at a given time.
Sure… but you’re not buying a guarantee that will happen. If you want to buy a first-class ticket, you’re paying for the privilege of not being bumped. If you’re buying an economy-class ticket you’re getting a discount because you’re not guaranteed a seat.
having to force bump a passenger because no one took the bait money is what I would like to see be not ever a thing companies try to get away with.
If you did that most planes would end up flying with a minimum of 10% of the seats empty. As a result, passengers would have to pay significantly more for their tickets.
With the current setup, the airlines oversell every plane, but most of the time everyone still gets a seat. The airlines know that roughly 5-10% of the passengers never make it to the gate and claim their seat. Some people change their mind at the last minute. Some miscalculate traffic. Some are on connecting flights that get delayed.
It’s pretty rare that an airline has to bump passengers, and they hate it when they have to do it. It screws with their whole schedule and eats into their profits. But, having to occasionally do that is worth it for them because they get to run many more flights at 98% capacity or something, rather than 90% or even 80%.
I am a dead pirate
most of the laws that rely words like “reasonable”, “beneficial” and “good” are now magically reasonable, magically beneficial and magically good.
as such, those judges that can interpret these terms are now being sought out and gifted by generous friends.
on the otherhand, teachers will now be more stern with their students about reciting their daily oath of allegiance.
“I pledge allegience to the flag…”
“MOTHERFUCKER, STAY AWAY FROM THE 🇺🇸 FLAG, OR I WILL BE FORCED TO OPEN FIRE!!!”
Allegiance to a flag is a pretty meaningless statement. It’s like allegiance to a shoe, or fealty to a belt buckle.
For example, how can you be disloyal to a flag?
Ask the dumbass who wrote the pledge
The first version was written in 1885 by Captain George Thatcher Balch, a Union Army officer in the Civil War who later authored a book on how to teach patriotism to children in public schools.
I can’t because he’s fucking dead.
Depending on the punishment, I think it would be pretty empty.
I’d be walking on corpses.
The magic compels you to fullfill your oaths. If you try to resist the magic, you die of a brain aneurysm that’s uncurable by any doctor.
Yup, so I’d be walking on corpses. If the magic just compels, they’ll still break promises.
“I’ll be there at seven” then they don’t realise they can’t make it before seven.
Död
House MD - The lies in one minute tangentially related.
Speed limits would result in groups of traffic sort of just sticking together, with most everyone going right at the speed limit and the occasional slower vehicle.
