bowlinger qua bowlinger

Appellant transferred an automobile to appellee in exchange for her promise to pay him $100 and a specified number of sexual favors. In his complaint, appellant alleges breach of contract and asks for money damages. The justice of the peace court dismissed the action, ruling that the contract was illegal and unenforceable. The district court affirmed the dismissal. The issue is whether or not appellant is entitled to any relief under the contract.We will affirm.

The essence of the agreement between the parties was that appellant would transfer a 1970 Pontiac automobile to appellee in consideration for her paying $100 and additionally bestowing upon him 100 sexual favors. The agreement was in writing and undated. It contained some ambiguous and unfamiliar terms which were sufficiently clarified at trial. Appellant brought an action against appellee in the small claims court and in his complaint alleged breach of contract and demanded money damages.

The uncontroverted testimony at trial was that appellee had not paid the $100 and had only partially otherwise performed. The agreement provided that appellee would get the car when she had performed 50 sexual acts; however, for some reason not disclosed, there was a premature transfer of the automobile.

Hamburg v. Hansen, 683 P.2d 662 (Wyo. 1984)

Turns out that contracts like this are void for being against public policy. At least in Wyoming.

This lack of substantive distinction is more clearly seen in the light of the following hypothetical situation. Assuming, for instance, that an individual stops at a neighborhood tavern to purchase a six-pack of beer to take out and, while there, also decides to purchase a 12-ounce bottle of beer to drink at the bar. Under the provisions of the ordinance before us, when he receives his total bill, he will be charged no tax for the six cans of beer but will be required to pay 6 cents tax for the bottle of beer.

North Sheffield, Inc. v. Chicago, 144 Ill. App. 3d 913, 919-920 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1986)

“No sense at all. No sense at all. Like I say, it’s just a criminal mind”
- Cheatham County Sheriff John Holder

From MSNBC. First the hilarious parts of the story:

ASHLAND CITY, Tenn. - Police said someone frustrated at gas prices left a dead deer and a sign at a Cheatham County gas station.

Rising gas prices are weighing heavily on everyone, and Moe Patel said he does his best to keep matters light with his customers.

It was at Patel’s station last week that Patel’s wife found a dead pregnant deer with a note attached to it that said, “Lower gas prices. Humans are taking it out on us.”

“My wife and I, we’re both dumbfounded. It doesn’t make sense,” Patel said.

“They have a right to be frustrated,” Patel said.

Patel said he understands the anger but said that people should aim higher with their complaints because sinking to the level of killing an innocent animal doesn’t help anyone.

“My and my wife run this small business. If they really want to make a change and give a message, you know, for example, take it in front of the White House lawn. If you have problem with the gas prices, do something about it. What am I going to do about it? I can’t do anything about it, you know. I’m just the messenger,” he said.

Now the legal aspects:

Detectives and officials with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency are investigating who killed and dumped the deer and why.

Whoever is responsible could face animal cruelty charges, police said.

Officials said it is possible that the deer could be road kill because they haven’t determined the cause of its death. A report said only that the deer had trauma to the back part of its body.

Holder said however it died, tying it up and moving it to the gas station was the act of more than one person.

Cruelty to animals in Tennessee is TN Code 39-14-202. (a)(1) is “torture” and (a)(3) is unreasonable abandonment. I don’t think either of these apply, even if the deer were killed just for the protest. 39-14-212, “aggravated cruelty to animals” only applies to “companion animals,” i.e. pets. Not sure if abuse of an animal corpse would fit into this section. I’d search the case law, but I’m afraid to do so with my work Westlaw account.

I do think there’s a clear violation of 70-4-116(d)(1) - killing or posessing a deer without properly tagging the animal.

While I was poking around in the Tennessee Criminal Code, I checked out the “no-sex-with-animals” statute. It is 39-14-219, which not only criminalizes (a)(1) - engaging in “any sexual activity with an animal,” but also (a)(2) - causing, aiding or abetting it. And even (a)(3) - permitting it “to be conducted on any premises under the person’s charge or control”. Naturally, there had to be an exception (d) - for “accepted animal husbandry practices”.

I’m not sure “husbandry” would be the word I would have chosen.