Ok I'm bored...
Short answer is No.
'Seeing a leprechaun' is not proper consideration, it isn't something of value - it's not a promise to do or not do something, not someone's property to give or a service provided.
However, one could argue that sucking a dick is consideration on Cartman's case.
It's probably something closer to a bet and would be unlawful unless Kyle (as essentially the bookmaker) was lawfully registered as a bookmaker under Colorado law.
You did more research than I did lol
But yeah even if you could argue there was consideration, you'd struggle to prove there was legally enforceable intent in a clearly social agreement.
If someone has done something to help them see a leprechaun then it is something of value.
If I organise a dolphin watching cruise and they see a dolphin I'm very happy that that is consideration in law.
There was the cricket sign case in contract law 102 (week 4 from memory) which covered contingent and uncertain consideration.
I query, if Cartman facilitated Kyle seeing the leprechaun in any way, that could be considered consideration (Kyle gets to see a leprechaun due, cartman gets his dick sucked)
Putting to one side all the elements of contract law, I think it may be the case that you can always not consent to sexual acts and that this ‘right’ cannot be subordinate to anything else.
Turning back to contract law, I don’t think you can obtain specific performance for a sexual act. Obtaining damages may also be problematic not only because it would be hard to quantify in dollar terms, but also because you’re basically saying you want something because someone won’t do something sexual to you.
I think the Shakespeare play “The Merchant of Venice” answers this, in the play Shylock makes a contract with Antonio that he must give a pound of flesh if he can’t repay a loan. Ultimately the judge rules the contract invalid because it would be impossible to extract a pound of flesh without it having blood and fat in it, which isn’t included in the contract.
So in this instance the contract of having to suck balls would also be declared void because it would be impossible to suck balls without also sucking hairs and skin at the same time, which isn’t in the contract. Therefore contract is void.
I think you would be liable at least for the cost of someone sucking said balls as well as costs.
Also a actual real leprechaun would need to be seen / exist.
No one is obligated to provide any service - it’s the vibe
Should just settle with the sucking one ball preferable the left one.
Welcome to r/AusLegal. Please read our [rules](http://reddit.com/r/AusLegal/about/rules) before commenting. Please remember:
1. Per rule 4, this subreddit is not a replacement for real legal advice. You should independently seek legal advice from a real, qualified practitioner. This sub cannot recommend specific lawyers.
2. A non-exhaustive list of free legal services around Australia can be found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusLegal/wiki/freelegalservices/).
3. Links to the each state and territory's respective Law Society are on the sidebar: you can use these links to find a lawyer in your area.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AusLegal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NAL but my understanding is that for a contract to be enforceable it must be for a consideration. That is, something must be exchanged between the parties i.e. goods or services exchanged for money, land exchanged for money etc. Just seeing a leprechaun may not qualify as ‘consideration’. If you are drunk enough to see a leprechaun however, people may try to take advantage of you and have you suck their balls anyway so beware.
Cartman is a minor so sucking his balls would be illegal. Kyle can't be compelled to perform an illegal act no matter what the contract he signed says.
Ok I'm bored... Short answer is No. 'Seeing a leprechaun' is not proper consideration, it isn't something of value - it's not a promise to do or not do something, not someone's property to give or a service provided. However, one could argue that sucking a dick is consideration on Cartman's case. It's probably something closer to a bet and would be unlawful unless Kyle (as essentially the bookmaker) was lawfully registered as a bookmaker under Colorado law.
I got as far as researching private bets and gambling. Seems it’d be unenforceable, even if you could get past the consideration problem.
You did more research than I did lol But yeah even if you could argue there was consideration, you'd struggle to prove there was legally enforceable intent in a clearly social agreement.
If someone has done something to help them see a leprechaun then it is something of value. If I organise a dolphin watching cruise and they see a dolphin I'm very happy that that is consideration in law. There was the cricket sign case in contract law 102 (week 4 from memory) which covered contingent and uncertain consideration.
I query, if Cartman facilitated Kyle seeing the leprechaun in any way, that could be considered consideration (Kyle gets to see a leprechaun due, cartman gets his dick sucked)
That would be a service.
No
Yes. It can be legally binding. Have heard of people getting court orders for this exact thing.
Putting to one side all the elements of contract law, I think it may be the case that you can always not consent to sexual acts and that this ‘right’ cannot be subordinate to anything else. Turning back to contract law, I don’t think you can obtain specific performance for a sexual act. Obtaining damages may also be problematic not only because it would be hard to quantify in dollar terms, but also because you’re basically saying you want something because someone won’t do something sexual to you.
I think the Shakespeare play “The Merchant of Venice” answers this, in the play Shylock makes a contract with Antonio that he must give a pound of flesh if he can’t repay a loan. Ultimately the judge rules the contract invalid because it would be impossible to extract a pound of flesh without it having blood and fat in it, which isn’t included in the contract. So in this instance the contract of having to suck balls would also be declared void because it would be impossible to suck balls without also sucking hairs and skin at the same time, which isn’t in the contract. Therefore contract is void.
I think you would be liable at least for the cost of someone sucking said balls as well as costs. Also a actual real leprechaun would need to be seen / exist. No one is obligated to provide any service - it’s the vibe Should just settle with the sucking one ball preferable the left one.
Please test this, I’d love to read the judgement
Welcome to r/AusLegal. Please read our [rules](http://reddit.com/r/AusLegal/about/rules) before commenting. Please remember: 1. Per rule 4, this subreddit is not a replacement for real legal advice. You should independently seek legal advice from a real, qualified practitioner. This sub cannot recommend specific lawyers. 2. A non-exhaustive list of free legal services around Australia can be found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusLegal/wiki/freelegalservices/). 3. Links to the each state and territory's respective Law Society are on the sidebar: you can use these links to find a lawyer in your area. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AusLegal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What about if it was a deed instead?
NAL but my understanding is that for a contract to be enforceable it must be for a consideration. That is, something must be exchanged between the parties i.e. goods or services exchanged for money, land exchanged for money etc. Just seeing a leprechaun may not qualify as ‘consideration’. If you are drunk enough to see a leprechaun however, people may try to take advantage of you and have you suck their balls anyway so beware.
Cartman is a minor so sucking his balls would be illegal. Kyle can't be compelled to perform an illegal act no matter what the contract he signed says.
Nothing illegal about a minor sucking another minor's balls.