The Tender For Law

English Only

ENGLISH is the international language of law and commerce. Knowing FRENCH is useful for understanding LEGAL ENGLISH, but FRENCH is not the international language of law and commerce, so we will ignore French speakers who speak to us in the language of a conquered people.

Non.

I understand that you are a proud Québécois, but the people here have nothing but contempt for you because of decades of transfer payments and NONE OF YOU understanding what Quebec sovereignty means. None of you know who Russell Rogers Smith is, and you're too proud and arrogant to teach. Just go away and be Retardier somewhere else.

Volume 7

Aug 26, 2014 8:24 AM

Sino General

Anyone ever read this ???? The Supreme Court discusses the issue of slavery and peonage quite succinctly in the case of Alonzo Bailey v. State of Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, (1911). Suffice it to say that the court held that contracts of peonage may be breached by either party at any time with impunity because contracts for peonage are unconstitutional. This is a landmark and very important case and the authors recommend that the readers obtain and study it. It is available http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=219&page=219

Find Laws, Legal Information, and Attorneys - FindLaw

findlaw.com

Find a local lawyer and free legal information at FindLaw, the award-winning website.

Unique ID: 462493170453287_712242282145040
Unique Facebook User ID:
1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated:
Type of Post:
link
Place of Post:
None

Read Comments 12

Pete Daoust

I opened the link, clicked "edit", and then clicked "find", and wrote the word "surety", and nothing came up, then I re-clicked "edit", and then "find", and wrote the word "accounting", and nope, nothing came up......so I didn't read it :(

Age Thomson

So, he contracts to work for the employer for a year, at the rate of 12$/month, and then the employer gives him 10.75$/month? The 15$ given upfront looks to be worked off in the first month and a bit, then he leaves (probably because he is being shorted by 1.25$/month) , then they charge him.... (I'd leave too by-the-way) Then it appears that they deemed that he had the intent to break the contract from the beginning. How did they figure it was without just cause though?

Back to top