COURT ACTS IN SANE FASHION
Today, that is a headline
All right everyone, put on your thinking caps for a minute. I shouldn’t have to say that,because normal people don’t need a cap in order to think. Unfortunately, empirical evidence compels me to admit that most people go around wearing tinfoil hats under their hair most of the time, so I must ask everyone to consider hypotheticals in order to get people to actually stop and think, even if only for a second or two.So, back to the case at hand.
If a company decides to do a favor for someone for a limited time, then continued the kindness for beyond the originally stated limit, should the company be forever required to provide said favor?The obvious answer is no, of course not. For several reasons.First, it’s a favor, not a payout. By definition, one is a legal exchange for something, the other is a kindness.Second, there was an explicitly defined time limit, beyond which there would not even be a verbal commitment towards this kindness.
The fact that the company continued to be kind beyond the originally established boundaries of this kindness is not a legal statement of any kind, but rather as an expression of goodwill, as is indicated by the original classification of a ‘favor’ in the first place, as opposed to a payout.Third, and perhaps most important, if we are to start deciding that entities are legally bound to the continuation of favors beyond the original date of expiration, we would start seeing a lot less in the way of favors from companies, period.
After all, if they can’t know that you won’t jump at the opportunity to use that kindness against them in some way come the future, why should bother trying to be kind in the first place? Easier, both mentally and
otherwise, to simply be a selfish jerk in the first place, rather than provide kindness to others who will then throw that kindness back in your teeth.Fortunately, a court seemed to realize that this week, when it ruled that a city employee couldn’t push the limits of a favor afforded to him by a former manager, even though it could technically have been cast as an accommodation, because the favorable arrangement had never been required by the law.