As someone who has had a kidney removed, I would not advise anyone to do it voluntarily for less than the equivalent of 2-3 years salary.
It isn’t allowed because it’s unenforcable.
Say some rich guy like Warren Buffet fronts you 200K for a kidney in 6 months.
So you take half down, half on delivery.
What happens if you spend the 100K but then change your mind?
Can Buffet Force you to deliver the kidney?
Can his lawyers order you arrested, dragged to a hospital, surgically doped up and the kidney cut out?
what if things changed, you were drinking up your 100K, and got into a fight and stabbed in the back
and one of your kidneys is badly damaged and failing. Do you still have to deliver?
You get sued for the $100,000.00 you stole, and Warren gets a lesson in dealing with thieves.
It’s amazing how people live in the same world as us and yet have no idea how it works, isn’t it?
Someone who sells their kidney for $100K and then spends it all drinking
doesn’t have $100K to be sued for.
So then what?
“So then what?”
I think that’s why they invented bankruptcy court.
Doesn’t do the Rich Person any good.
Bart the Bum, signs a contract for $100K now and $100K in 18 months to
provide one kidney to Wealthy Warren. Bart signs, then goes on an 18 month
bender drinking up every dollar and playing Skid Row Millionaire.
Bart then welshes on the deal. Bart says he doesn’t want to provide the kidney?
What then?
Suing a bum into bankruptcy isn’t going to get you a dime.
It’s interesting how easy it was for Tommy the Pain to answer your question. Most of these conundrums are already solved due to existing law. Maybe you should think next time before you post?
Probably good if he took a moment to think anytime he posted anywhere.
Say some rich guy like Warren Buffet fronts you 200K for a kidney in 6 months.
Warren Buffet would be smart enough not to do that. Only a moron like you would even consider the possibility of such a thing.
In which case you recognize that the subject is utterly unsuitable for contractual enforcement.
Are you really this stupid, or are you just playing an imbecile on the Internet?
For others, since you’re too imbecilic to understand it, here’s the deal sheet for the contract:
You provide your kidney to a donor. You get paid after you’ve provided the kidney to the donor.
Please tell me that you don’t work in government procurement. Because if you do, it would explain a lot.
Which means you don’t have consideration of contract.
In order to have a contract, you must have consideration.
A future consideration for a future delivery is just a price point.
The issue is “Would this agreement be enforcable by a court”?
By your terms, would Wealthy Warren 6 months from now with his
kidney now failing be able to go to court to enforce his contract?
However, I think it should be legal to do so. I don’t see why government should have any say-so in the decision.
The hospital makes money on transplants. The surgeon, nurses and surgical staff make money on transplants. So do other people involved in the process, such as the transplant coordinator. The only ones who make nothing are the donors or their families. What’s wrong with this picture?
I understand the need to avoid taking advantage of desperate people as what reportedly happens in other countries. Can’t proper safeguards be developed to prevent this from happening?
Can’t proper safeguards be developed…
No. Rules are not safeguards. Guards, that is people, are the only safeguards. You must eliminate bad people which people are not equipped to do in most cases.
Repeat criminals should be dealt with harshly. First time criminals should be penalized but more important made aware that repeats will not be tolerated.
Strong property rights means you can sell off your own body parts even if you don’t have two.
“Strong property rights means you can sell off your own body parts even if you don’t have two.”
So will the courts enforce this?
In your future will the sheriff arrest you, drag you to a court ordered doctor and force you to undergo surgery?
I don’t know where you get the deluded idea that people would pay for something like a kidney months in advance. That’s just stupid. You pay for something when you receive it. If someone were to enter into a contract to donate an organ, they’ll get paid at delivery. The biggest concerns were if the contract were involuntary or forced.
” You pay for something when you receive it. ”
Which shows you know very little about contracts.
There are many times of contracts. Just off the top of my head, I can think of Cost Plus, IDIQ, Fixed Price and FP with Award Fee. Only an idiot would use the type you keep suggesting in the case of contracting for a kidney. Only an absolute idiot, or a government entity which is redundant with absolute idiot.
As someone who has had a kidney removed, I would not advise anyone to do it voluntarily for less than the equivalent of 2-3 years salary.
It isn’t allowed because it’s unenforcable.
Say some rich guy like Warren Buffet fronts you 200K for a kidney in 6 months.
So you take half down, half on delivery.
What happens if you spend the 100K but then change your mind?
Can Buffet Force you to deliver the kidney?
Can his lawyers order you arrested, dragged to a hospital, surgically doped up and the kidney cut out?
what if things changed, you were drinking up your 100K, and got into a fight and stabbed in the back
and one of your kidneys is badly damaged and failing. Do you still have to deliver?
You get sued for the $100,000.00 you stole, and Warren gets a lesson in dealing with thieves.
It’s amazing how people live in the same world as us and yet have no idea how it works, isn’t it?
Someone who sells their kidney for $100K and then spends it all drinking
doesn’t have $100K to be sued for.
So then what?
“So then what?”
I think that’s why they invented bankruptcy court.
Doesn’t do the Rich Person any good.
Bart the Bum, signs a contract for $100K now and $100K in 18 months to
provide one kidney to Wealthy Warren. Bart signs, then goes on an 18 month
bender drinking up every dollar and playing Skid Row Millionaire.
Bart then welshes on the deal. Bart says he doesn’t want to provide the kidney?
What then?
Suing a bum into bankruptcy isn’t going to get you a dime.
It’s interesting how easy it was for Tommy the Pain to answer your question. Most of these conundrums are already solved due to existing law. Maybe you should think next time before you post?
Probably good if he took a moment to think anytime he posted anywhere.
Say some rich guy like Warren Buffet fronts you 200K for a kidney in 6 months.
Warren Buffet would be smart enough not to do that. Only a moron like you would even consider the possibility of such a thing.
In which case you recognize that the subject is utterly unsuitable for contractual enforcement.
Are you really this stupid, or are you just playing an imbecile on the Internet?
For others, since you’re too imbecilic to understand it, here’s the deal sheet for the contract:
You provide your kidney to a donor. You get paid after you’ve provided the kidney to the donor.
Please tell me that you don’t work in government procurement. Because if you do, it would explain a lot.
Which means you don’t have consideration of contract.
In order to have a contract, you must have consideration.
A future consideration for a future delivery is just a price point.
The issue is “Would this agreement be enforcable by a court”?
By your terms, would Wealthy Warren 6 months from now with his
kidney now failing be able to go to court to enforce his contract?
I’d say that we should declare Douchenozzle the winner and new champion.
I think selling a kidney is an awful idea.
However, I think it should be legal to do so. I don’t see why government should have any say-so in the decision.
The hospital makes money on transplants. The surgeon, nurses and surgical staff make money on transplants. So do other people involved in the process, such as the transplant coordinator. The only ones who make nothing are the donors or their families. What’s wrong with this picture?
I understand the need to avoid taking advantage of desperate people as what reportedly happens in other countries. Can’t proper safeguards be developed to prevent this from happening?
Can’t proper safeguards be developed…
No. Rules are not safeguards. Guards, that is people, are the only safeguards. You must eliminate bad people which people are not equipped to do in most cases.
Repeat criminals should be dealt with harshly. First time criminals should be penalized but more important made aware that repeats will not be tolerated.
Strong property rights means you can sell off your own body parts even if you don’t have two.
“Strong property rights means you can sell off your own body parts even if you don’t have two.”
So will the courts enforce this?
In your future will the sheriff arrest you, drag you to a court ordered doctor and force you to undergo surgery?
I don’t know where you get the deluded idea that people would pay for something like a kidney months in advance. That’s just stupid. You pay for something when you receive it. If someone were to enter into a contract to donate an organ, they’ll get paid at delivery. The biggest concerns were if the contract were involuntary or forced.
” You pay for something when you receive it. ”
Which shows you know very little about contracts.
There are many times of contracts. Just off the top of my head, I can think of Cost Plus, IDIQ, Fixed Price and FP with Award Fee. Only an idiot would use the type you keep suggesting in the case of contracting for a kidney. Only an absolute idiot, or a government entity which is redundant with absolute idiot.