|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Grumpy Senator
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Location: Up and down the 6 line
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mayorgc wrote: |
| There are some people who will go to great lengths to defend Korea regardless of the situation. |
And there are some people that can only see one side of an issue and must make excuses and insults to make themselves feel as though they have won. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Goku
Joined: 10 Dec 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
She was unable to fill the terms of the contract because she commited suicide. There are no other factors. Just her. A prosecutor can strongly argue that she had choices as to protect the image of the company. She has no control over being beaten, but she can control what happens after.
For example,
Acts of god are to prevent extrenuating circumstances such as an earthquake demolishing areas. And EVEN in cases of acts of god, it is still possible to determine if they were forseeable or unforseeable cosequences. Such as an act of god can be a hurricane, but if a company was shipping a good and didn't take proper measures to prevent against it, can still be liable for an act of god. Such as not steering away from the hurricane or waiting for it to subside.
In this case, it's possible for a prosecutor to argue that Choi didn't take measures to protect her image (more specifically the company's image). Such measures include not showing her face to the public, hiding her injuries, or even not commiting suicide. These are things measures she could have taken to prevent damage to the companies repuation.
Of course there are cases where contracts can become null and void. But I already went over them in my previous posts.
But none of them are plausible terms to void a contract:
1) Illegal activity - No killing or drugs here
2) A misunderstanding (more commonly named mistake) occurs. I already went over this in a previous post
3) Duress, No duress period.
4) Incapacity - She was well inside her capacity to maintain terms of contract, she is neither menally insane, nor a child
5) Misinterpretaton - Covered in a previous post as well.
And lastly, I have to ask, your lawyer friend, what kind of lawyer is she? Is she in Torts or Banking? Does she know the specifics of the case? That the lawsuit came after the suicide. If I heard the lawsuit came BEFORE the suidicde I am more inclined to believe she is not liable. But because it came AFTER most lawyers would believe she is liable, or would believe the case is stronger in that regard.
Have her come onto these boards, I don't mind having a debate. I'm a bit rusty on my rebuttaling so I could use the practice.
Also those examples of Kobe, Paris, etc are taken to prove a point of a single premise. Not the entire conclusion. You are assuming we mean these examples to be perfectly analogous, they are not. If we wanted to compare Eastern ajummas to old ladys in America, I could make a point of stating that western women also wear visors. Not everything else is completley analogous to ajummas, but that doesn't counter act the point I'm making that they both wear visors.
And of course there are no western comparisons.
When was the last time we have even heard of an actress being beaten, commiting suicide and having an endorsement deal at the same time. This case is rare, so we don't have a western analogy.
Also, just because an analogy doesn't exist doesn't mean it woldn't have been ruled the same way. The absence of an example doesn't rule out the possibility.
This case could be ruled EITHER way in America. It's grey to argue either side and there are facts and details that can sway the case.
But what people are saying is that Korea is a system of injustice and that *cue haughty big man voice*
"Oh my good old western system of jusice would never allow such a stupid Korean travesty to happen. Korea is full of victimizing physchos"
Which isn't the case at all.
I'm arguing is that it would a lot of debate among western lawyers, judges, and lower and higher circuits like in any western system. It's not like they would look at this case and immediately dismiss it. They would deliberate on it of course. The case isn't an obvious one of simple contractual law.
And people seem to foreget the lower circuits were overturned when they said that Choi wasn't liable. It's not like ALLLLLL of Korea is against Choi and saying that domestic abuse is A Ok. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mayorgc
Joined: 19 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, I think everybody sees 2 sides to this issue. It's the fact that there are some here who are defending the other side.
A woman got beat up and now she's being sued because of it. It's pretty straight forward, isn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diver
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Goku,
Choi Jin-Sil was sued for having bruises on her face, not for killing herself.
You were the one that has stated that a breach is a breach and that if a contract is broken, for WHATEVER reason, someone would be found at fault. You were then unable to prove your point either with a real example, or with an acceptable hypothetical analogy.
I have proven, or at least my lawyer friend has proven, your claim to be untrue (at least in Australian law - for our purposes, I think most of us accept Australia as a "western" country). This shows that this ruling would not be reached in the west. My lawyer friend (who is actually a lawyer, not an actress on "Law and Order") cited to specific points of contract law to back this up. In HER professional opinion, this case would probably not even make trial.
Point 1) The contract is "frustrated" because one party cannot fulfill the terms of the agreement due to circumstances beyond his or her control.
Point 2) The vagueness of the "morality clause" could be interpreted as being too vague an as such gives one party to the contract an unfair advantage.
I do not know what kind of lawyer she is, but I believe it is contract law (I will ask). The point is moot though as I believe she knows more about the subject than you ever will.
You can shift the goal posts all you want. You have been proven wrong.
Your two main points -
1) A western court would reach the same conclusion - WRONG
2) A breach is a breach is a breach (for whatever reason) - WRONG
I doubt that my lawyer friend will waste time debating with us here. I can tell you that she has browsed the posts and has been made aware of your claims - she thinks you are hilarious.
Now you want to start a new argument - that not ALL Koreans are against Choi Jin-Sil because the lower courts ruled in her favor. Straw man. No one here (at least not I) said that ALL Koreans were against Choi Jin-Sil. However, it is significant that the HIGHEST court in the land overturned the lower court decisions in order to award money to a large company over a woman (who had been victimized by her husband no less). The same court had the power to toss out the case against the Hebei Spirit crew, but chose not to.
The Korean government and courts have demonstrated a pattern of decisions that reveal a slant against women and foreigners. This is not in dispute. Poor legal decisions in the West (no matter what the case) do nothing to negate nor disprove this fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldMember wrote: |
So now we have some English Teachers who are legal experts and can determine what is a smart or stupid legal decision.
. |
But then ironically you go on to do just that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Goku
Joined: 10 Dec 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Diver, I'm trying to not get into personal insults, but disrespect begets disrespect, please stick to the subject at hand instead of resorting to personal attacks. I never attacked you or your lawyer friend. So please keep it civil.
I didn't say that a breach of contract ultimately results in someone always paying damages. There are many cases in law where a breach of contract can mean that compensation for damages are not awarded. I already stated acts of gods.... And I keep stating it, it's like the 3rd of 4th time I've had to mention it.
1) Frustration can or cannot apply in this case. And with frustration it could be inferred to mean two things. But you didn't specify so I have to cover both in a rebuttal, (I could easily argue the opposite but since you seem so hard lined to argue that this would never reach court in western countries... I'll play devil's advocate)
a) Frustrated in the sense that she is dead does not apply. This would would mean that the goods are impossible to deliver (her image) however, she already delivered her image. So the fact that she is dead is not relevant. The goods were provided before her death. Even after her death if she mainted a good image, there is no grounds for lawsuit and she would still be paid for her money. Point is moot that she is dead. If her image was good before and after death, there would be no lawsuit. Her death, was one of humility and can be logically assumed to be a breach of contract when she decided to commit suidice.
b) Frustrated in the sense that she was beaten could apply, but... This would mean that some activity has rendered her unable to deliver her service. There is nothing that is preventing her from delivering her service. She already provided her good image before she was beaten. Like I mentioned, it is the burden of her and her contract to maintain her good image. There is nothing stopping from her maintaing a good image in the media EVEN IF SHE IS BEATEN. Remember, it's not just her face that is the problem, it's also her image as a wife and family member, which actually is the bigger deal. We seem to be forgetting this quote:
| Quote: |
"The purpose of the brand model contract is to use the model's social reputation and images to draw the customers' interest," said the Supreme Court in the ruling. "The model's failure to maintain an adequate image constitutes a breach of the hiring contract." |
She had already delivered part of her service, it's her responsibility to maintain it. The fact that she was beaten, that aspect cannot be helped, but it's irrelevant as she can use preventive activities. (Like I said, staying inside, not going outside, or helping her own PR in anyway) If a prosecutor can prove she took steps to aggravate the abuse, then her case is totally lost in terms of unforseeable consequences and again burden falls on her. (an analogy would be like trying to get money for a accident I instigated. But let's assume she didn't instigate anything and she's completely a victim here. Even if that's the case, a prosecutor can argue that the terms of the contract, with her full knowledge (and this is important, as to avoid nullification by mistake,) that when she signed the contract she was under obligation to maintain a happy household image.
And also, you took the law and order completely out of context, I cited law and order as a TV show that points out contradictions of the law to moral beliefs. But you wholly had to take that out of context. I would not reference law and order for anything relevant to our disscussion. Thus, this is example of you took one point and broadended the umbrella to construe other things.
AND IF YOUR FRIEND, really thinks this case would never make it to a western court without knowing the details of the contract, I'd be amazed. I'd imagine a pretty cliche answer from a torts lawyer to say: "I'd have to see the contract first".
The underlying clause that I imagine the court's ruling would be the premise of that the entire purpose of contract was to maintain a healthy image of a household. If the clause speficially states this is her responsibility and she if full aware of it without any possible case of "mistake" then ultimately a court would rule in favor of the company.
Like I said, this case could fence either way, in Korea, In America... The fact that your friend says this would never even be eneterained in a western court makes me beleive she's an imaginary friend. Nothing personal, I just have a hard time beliving any contract or lawyer in general can argue a contract is void and null without ever seeing it.
I HAVE been discussing with my lawyer friends (if you want to get into who's cooler and has my lawyer friends I can do it) too. He works as an Intern for a DA's office. He deals in Torts. He's pretty much on the fence with this and his... of course, his natural response was: "Depends on the contract".
I mean, if you want to get into all this "my reference is bigger than yours" talk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diver
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Goku wrote: |
Diver, I'm trying to not get into personal insults, but disrespect begets disrespect, please stick to the subject at hand instead of resorting to personal attacks. I never attacked you or your lawyer friend. So please keep it civil.
I didn't say that a breach of contract ultimately results in someone always paying damages. There are many cases in law where a breach of contract can mean that compensation for damages are not awarded. I already stated acts of gods.... And I keep stating it, it's like the 3rd of 4th time I've had to mention it.
1) Frustration can or cannot apply in this case. And with frustration it could be inferred to mean two things. But you didn't specify so I have to cover both in a rebuttal, (I could easily argue the opposite but since you seem so hard lined to argue that this would never reach court in western countries... I'll play devil's advocate)
a) Frustrated in the sense that she is dead does not apply. This would would mean that the goods are impossible to deliver (her image) however, she already delivered her image. So the fact that she is dead is not relevant. The goods were provided before her death. Even after her death if she mainted a good image, there is no grounds for lawsuit and she would still be paid for her money. Point is moot that she is dead. If her image was good before and after death, there would be no lawsuit. Her death, was one of humility and can be logically assumed to be a breach of contract when she decided to commit suidice.
b) Frustrated in the sense that she was beaten could apply, but... This would mean that some activity has rendered her unable to deliver her service. There is nothing that is preventing her from delivering her service. She already provided her good image before she was beaten. Like I mentioned, it is the burden of her and her contract to maintain her good image. There is nothing stopping from her maintaing a good image in the media EVEN IF SHE IS BEATEN. Remember, it's not just her face that is the problem, it's also her image as a wife and family member, which actually is the bigger deal. We seem to be forgetting this quote:
| Quote: |
"The purpose of the brand model contract is to use the model's social reputation and images to draw the customers' interest," said the Supreme Court in the ruling. "The model's failure to maintain an adequate image constitutes a breach of the hiring contract." |
She had already delivered part of her service, it's her responsibility to maintain it. The fact that she was beaten, that aspect cannot be helped, but it's irrelevant as she can use preventive activities. (Like I said, staying inside, not going outside, or helping her own PR in anyway) If a prosecutor can prove she took steps to aggravate the abuse, then her case is totally lost in terms of unforseeable consequences and again burden falls on her. (an analogy would be like trying to get money for a accident I instigated. But let's assume she didn't instigate anything and she's completely a victim here. Even if that's the case, a prosecutor can argue that the terms of the contract, with her full knowledge (and this is important, as to avoid nullification by mistake,) that when she signed the contract she was under obligation to maintain a happy household image.
And also, you took the law and order completely out of context, I cited law and order as a TV show that points out contradictions of the law to moral beliefs. But you wholly had to take that out of context. I would not reference law and order for anything relevant to our disscussion. Thus, this is example of you took one point and broadended the umbrella to construe other things.
AND IF YOUR FRIEND, really thinks this case would never make it to a western court without knowing the details of the contract, I'd be amazed. I'd imagine a pretty cliche answer from a torts lawyer to say: "I'd have to see the contract first".
The underlying clause that I imagine the court's ruling would be the premise of that the entire purpose of contract was to maintain a healthy image of a household. If the clause speficially states this is her responsibility and she if full aware of it without any possible case of "mistake" then ultimately a court would rule in favor of the company.
Like I said, this case could fence either way, in Korea, In America... The fact that your friend says this would never even be eneterained in a western court makes me beleive she's an imaginary friend. Nothing personal, I just have a hard time beliving any contract or lawyer in general can argue a contract is void and null without ever seeing it.
I HAVE been discussing with my lawyer friends (if you want to get into who's cooler and has my lawyer friends I can do it) too. He works as an Intern for a DA's office. He deals in Torts. He's pretty much on the fence with this and his... of course, his natural response was: "Depends on the contract".
I mean, if you want to get into all this "my reference is bigger than yours" talk. |
I quite clearly posted that my friend qualified her response by saying she could only comment in broad terms based on the limited information available in the article.
Your lawyer friends are on the fence? Meaning they don't know which way the case would go?
That also disproves your "a breach is a breach is a breach no matter what happens" stance. Wrong again.
I have been on-topic through the whole thread. You said one thing. I have proven you wrong. YOU have proven you wrong.
Did you really drag "Law and Order" into this discussion, and THEN ask ME to stay on topic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Goku
Joined: 10 Dec 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lol forget it diver.
I won't convince you and you can't convince me.
I'll agree to disagree on this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Grumpy Senator wrote: |
| mayorgc wrote: |
But what is there to understand?
Isn't this issue pretty cut and dry?
A woman gets beaten up and somebody sues her. |
There is more than that to this issue. Other posters have discussed the legalities of the subject. We also should bring up the issue of women not reporting domestic violence to the police. Whether the Korean police follow up on the report is not the issue. She should have begun a legal paper trail in the event things got worse (as they did). On more than one occasion, Choi Jin-sil was a bit irresponsible in her actions. By not making a will, she has put her estate and children in a bad situation. By not persuing charges against her former husband, she opened the door for the company she was contracted to represent to sue her estate to recover damages. Even though the beatings were not her fault, who does the company go after to recover losses? If she had persued charges against her former husband, the focus of the lawsuit could have been shifted. She did not do this, therefore the company must go after her estate. |
Green: She was a victim of domestic violence and committed suicide. She obviously was not in her right mind. If there's any irresponsibility, it's expecting someone who is in acute mental and emotional distress to think clearly and logically.
Red: Nice way to blame the victim. Kick a woman while she's down --six feet down.
Cyan: This is Korea. Domestic violence is still largely considered a private matter here. Victims of domestic violence rarely call the police, and even if the police do show up, the guy will scream, "This is none of your business!" while the cops just stand there. And anyway, it's pretty certain that he's the one who did it. Who else could it have been? So why do you insist on the need for her to have pursued anything?
Blue: Who says that the company lost any money? They ought to provide some kind of evidence of that. And even if they did, who says that they have to go after anybody? They could just cut their losses, the way other companies did when Magic Johnson admitted that he was HIV positive or when Kobe Bryant was accused of rape. What do farmers do when a hail storm wipes out their crop? Sue God? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diver
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
| The Grumpy Senator wrote: |
| mayorgc wrote: |
But what is there to understand?
Isn't this issue pretty cut and dry?
A woman gets beaten up and somebody sues her. |
There is more than that to this issue. Other posters have discussed the legalities of the subject. We also should bring up the issue of women not reporting domestic violence to the police. Whether the Korean police follow up on the report is not the issue. She should have begun a legal paper trail in the event things got worse (as they did). On more than one occasion, Choi Jin-sil was a bit irresponsible in her actions. By not making a will, she has put her estate and children in a bad situation. By not persuing charges against her former husband, she opened the door for the company she was contracted to represent to sue her estate to recover damages. Even though the beatings were not her fault, who does the company go after to recover losses? If she had persued charges against her former husband, the focus of the lawsuit could have been shifted. She did not do this, therefore the company must go after her estate. |
Green: She was a victim of domestic violence and committed suicide. She obviously was not in her right mind. If there's any irresponsibility, it's expecting someone who is in acute mental and emotional distress to think clearly and logically.
Red: Nice way to blame the victim. Kick a woman while she's down --six feet down.
Cyan: This is Korea. Domestic violence is still largely considered a private matter here. Victims of domestic violence rarely call the police, and even if the police do show up, the guy will scream, "This is none of your business!" while the cops just stand there. And anyway, it's pretty certain that he's the one who did it. Who else could it have been? So why do you insist on the need for her to have pursued anything?
Blue: Who says that the company lost any money? They ought to provide some kind of evidence of that. And even if they did, who says that they have to go after anybody? They could just cut their losses, the way other companies did when Magic Johnson admitted that he was HIV positive or when Kobe Bryant was accused of rape. What do farmers do when a hail storm wipes out their crop? Sue God? |
The way things work here, she would've been worse off pressing charges. It would have done even more "damage to the reputation of the company". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geckoman
Joined: 07 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Grumpy Senator wrote: |
By not persuing charges against her former husband, she opened the door for the company she was contracted to represent to sue her estate to recover damages. Even though the beatings were not her fault, who does the company go after to recover losses? If she had persued charges against her former husband, the focus of the lawsuit could have been shifted. She did not do this, therefore the company must go after her estate. |
Your statement above doesn't make any sense.
Choi Jin-sil agree to drop the domestic violence charges against her former husband in exchange for him not to try to get custody of their kids. And as we all know, in Korea when a divorce happens and there are kids the kids almost always goes to the father.
You would think that she would of had a slam dunk when it comes to trying to get custody of the kids given the former husband's history of domestic violence. That's the way it would of been in the US. Once the judge knows that one parent is a physical abuser and the other is not the kids pretty much for sure will go to parent who is not a physical abuser.
But this is Korea and given how many outrageous laws and court rulings there are, and how anti-female sexist Korean culture is and Korean laws are, I am not convinced that she would of gotten the kids even though her former husband was a wife beater.
After all, if she had a slam dunk to get custody of the kids because her former husband was a wife beater, there would of been no reason for her to of dropped the charges against him in exchange for him not to try to get custody of the kids.
Futhermore, while domestic violence is illegal and punished in Korea, it is not as big a deal as it is in the US. It is still considered a private matter by many Koreans. While that is changing it is still not like in the US where everyone agrees that domestic violence is a big deal and most definitely not a private matter to ignore and that physical abusers need to be punished greatly by the law.
Domestic violence is still huge in Korea. Just do some research on the internet. There is less domestic violence than before and there is more public awareness about it then before, and those two areas are getting better in Korea, but still it is far behind the US in those two areas.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JongnoGuru
Joined: 25 May 2004
Location: peeing on your doorstep
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's on Feministing.com now!!!
Only four comments, though. I want to see more here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheonmunka
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Shinhan Engineering and Construction Co, LTD., the company that sued her estate, apparently bids on various construction jobs within the United States, and around the world. Anyone involved in making decisions along those lines [Government contract managers, private construction firms who might sometimes look to foreign companies as subcontractors, engineers responsible for making recommendations, administrators who run the reference checks] just might want to make a note of this company's name, and save it for future reference. I know I will! A little diligence and publicity could cost them far more than $400,000 in business, and just might provoke a bit of consciousness raising.
|
I like this bit, from Feministing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mayorgc wrote: |
| I'm wondering if somebody will try to justify or defend this. |
The justification lies in the strict interpretation of the rules.
I read another article and it stated that the PR contract included that the individual was not allowed to smear her own character.
The fact that she showed herself publicly after domestic violence, breached with the PR contract.
It is not the domestic violence per se that caused the breach, but the public display of the result of domestic violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Goku
Joined: 10 Dec 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Juregen wrote: |
| mayorgc wrote: |
| I'm wondering if somebody will try to justify or defend this. |
The justification lies in the strict interpretation of the rules.
I read another article and it stated that the PR contract included that the individual was not allowed to smear her own character.
The fact that she showed herself publicly after domestic violence, breached with the PR contract.
It is not the domestic violence per se that caused the breach, but the public display of the result of domestic violence. |
Oh if you have it, could you link us that source?
I find this case really interesting and would love to find out more thanks :> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
