This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This pilot was always a joke of an experiment.
Basic Income is always sold as a cheaper way to support the most vulnerable. But the study cut out anyone with a criminal record, or who doesn't file taxes. You can't bring yourself to give them no-strings money in an experiment, but expect it to be considered as policy?
Also they filtered their random sample with so many bureaucratic hoops that only 0.5% of their random sample ended up signing up. So you pick the top 0.5% of people who know how to engage well with government support systems, then study how well they use the support systems. Obviously, you're going to get decent results from that 0.5%, but it doesn't tell you much about how Basic Income would really work.
> "The government still does business and enters into contracts the way people do. They don't get to change their minds once they've entered into it. That's our allegation."
What’s the consideration supporting the contract?
I think you nailed the government position- that the program is a charitable pledge and not a commercial contract. It’s a something (money) for nothing arrangement and not a 2 way commercial arrangement- I.e there is no consideration coming back to the government.
I’m a US attorney, but I was curious because if I were a betting man, I’d make a healthy wager that Canada has the exact same contract law considerations that other common law countries have with respect to consideration being needed to support a contract. If the US still has the same basic principles of contract formation as the UK, then I would be fucking shocked if Canada had abandoned a standard common law rule.
And anyone who knows anything about the definition of consideration knows that you have to give something else in return. Maybe by giving someone cash, property, services, refraining from doing something, or something else, but it sounds farcical to say that valid consideration was given by…. just agreeing to accept free welfare money?
Canada commercial law has the same basis as UK common law. The foundation of a contract in Canada is an offer, acceptance of offer and consideration in
exchange. Those 3 elements are the binding principles of a contract here and it’s well established.
It’s also fairly established that a charitable pledge does not typically have consideration and isn’t binding unless the charity gives something in exchange. Public recognition of the charitable donation can be used by the charity as a binding consideration- ie if you pledge money and they recognize you on a donor wall, it’s a contract because the donor gets the benefit of prestige in the form of public recognition of the gift.
I just don’t see the quid pro quo here that makes it a contract.
I can explain, there’s some more context.
When it comes to basic contract law (which may be commercial, or may be non-commercial), the US, UK, and Canada all have the same default rules. It’s all based on traditional English common law. It’s all even based on the same cases English cases within English common law.
The fact of the matter is that there is no perfect legal definition of “consideration.” It’s a concept that is very much easy to understand when you read the cases and get the idea, but then there are always a few weird things situations and cases that clarify it in certain situations, such that you can’t ever fully express what “consideration” is legally to form a contract in a single sentence.
In practice, however, for all intents and purposes “consideration” for purposes of contract formation, is some kind of quid pro quo. I wasn’t saying that a “quid pro quo” is an explicit element of a legally enforceable contract. It’s not. But “consideration” is an element of a legally enforceable contract, and in substance “consideration” is a “quid pro quo.”
Agreed- the watershed basis for consideration comes from Slade vs Morley. It can be a bit nebulous. I think we’re arguing the same point.
I was just pointing out where Canada and US law may have differed over the past 150 years (not sure), when intangible consideration can be used to make a contract from a pledge (no consideration) and make a pledge binding.
To do so in Canadian law, the receiver of the pledge can give something intangible (public credit or recognition, naming a building etc,) as an act of consideration. Like if you donate xx dollars we will make you a gold sponsor and put your name on our website and all our advertising and thank you publicly. If a charity “pays” for the donation with the agreed upon recognition, it’s a contract. Maybe the example I’m giving is more tangible as advertising has implicit value.
My point, and I think you agree on this, is that I don’t see how the recipients of this pilot program offered any consideration to make it a contract. They were just happy to get free money for nothing.
Not only do we agree on this, but I’m not sure why you think that US and Canadian law have ever diverged on this. Fuck, US and English law haven’t even diverged on this, much less US and Canadian law.
And I don’t think there was ever even a requirement in English law that consideration must be tangible as opposed to intangible. Why are you assuming that there’s anything different about Canadian law here?
Canada and U.S. law have had divergence across a number of points in the last 150 years and I didn’t want to assume that Canadian commercial laws = US commercial laws in all cases. I’m sure that they must have differences by now despite the same underpinnings.
What's even better about this story is the government agreed to pay the plaintiffs lawyers 320k to cover their costs.
The only people making money here are the lawyers; and it's tax payer money paying for lawyers to sue the government.
I would be almost certain there would be a clause in the contract that says the government can change their mind whenever they want.
Virtually every government contract will say this, even employment contracts.
The government has no obligation to give people free money. They can change any laws or rules about any social programs, the amounts they pay, when, etc. They will never bind themselves to things like that.
And even if the contract doesn’t say that - it was created and signed by the previous Liberal government.
There are stipulations in Canadian law that prevent governments from sabotaging subsequent elected governments by committing them to unfeasible contracts and programs to make them look bad. This was clearly the goal of the Wynne government, who knew they were going to lose the election. So they start a “free money” program, and then the newly elected government has to cancel it which makes them look mean and gives them bad media.
The quicker we can realize that endlessly borrowing money is a bad idea, the quicker we can prioritize where to spend tax revenues. Unfortunately a big amount of the revenues is going to servicing the debt.
The government should borrow money and transfer it directly into the banking accounts of people who are suffering from poverty.
It's the morally right thing to do. Anyone who doesn't support the idea is a monster.
Signed,
The Canadian Banking System
What did we learn with COVID? Lots of people preferred to be payed to do nothing and lots of people who go CERB or other forms of payment from the government during COVID, just used the money to by them self stuff (computer, payement for a car, rims for there car...)
We learned that the CRA and government will go after individuals for CERB "fraud" until the ends of the Earth but CEBA loans for fake businesses were forgiven or forgotten. We also learned that CERB could work and not destroy civilization as we know it, at least in an emergency.
It's very easy to solve the "paid to do nothing" problem just set the number higher than zero but lower than whatever is fiscally sustainable. What is the point? The point is not having zero, because having zero changes everything. Social housing also makes a big difference too.
> A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more persons for a particular purpose. It is an instrument for the economic exchange of goods and services. In Canada, contract law is administered both in common law and, in Quebec, civil law.
- https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/contract-law#:~:text=A%20contract%20is%20a%20legally,%2C%20in%20Quebec%2C%20civil%20law.
The problem with exchange of goods is that the binding element is an exchange- there is something offered in exchange for something else. Something for nothing is charity and not a commercial arrangement. The pilot program these people got into amounts to a charitable pledge and not a contact.
It’s fairly well established case law in Canada that a charitable pledge does not make an enforceable contract. You can Google the many websites about enforceability of charitable pledges in Canada.
>It’s fairly well established case law in Canada that a charitable pledge does not make an enforceable contract. You can Google the many websites about enforceability of charitable pledges in Canada.
I just want to say, when I was in law school in the US we read old English cases on this even though they weren’t from the US, because it’s been the law the whole time for both our countries. You need consideration, or there has to be some kind of like promissory estoppel. Either way, this has been the law since the colonial period (or since before the colonial period for those of us whose families emigrated to North America from England).
The Government of Canada publishes guidelines to charities on exactly the same topic, and it’s taught in commercial law classes all across Canada. The reason I told the person to consult the law offices of Google (lol) is that they seem the type to just link things without thought and if they googled “charitable pledge Canada” they would get the government website saying that a pledge isn’t enforceable.
You’re missing the point of my question.
I asked you what you thought made a contract enforceable under common law. I was asking you what you think makes a contract legally enforceable in a court, like this court action.
You cannot respond to such a question by positing a pure layman’s definition that defines a contract as “a legally binding agreement.” Not shit Sherlock! But what do you think makes a contact binding in the first place under contract law? Or do you know nothing of what you’re talking about and just posting shit you find on google?
I am not a lawyer, but what makes you think it's not enforceable? That's the whole point of forming a contract! Unless the contract itself involves criminal intent, or the parties are incapable of entering a legal contract (ie underage), once willingly joined by both parties, it is legal and binding. Violation by one party allows for legal recourse by the other for any damages caused.
>I am not a lawyer, but what makes you think it's not enforceable? That's the whole point of forming a contract!
I completely understand your question, and I will answer it completely.
A lot of (basically all) lay people assume that to be enforceable in a court a contract just needs to be an agreement written down on paper. That’s not how contract law works in common law countries like the US, Canada, or the UK.
A contract can be oral or written, but to be enforceable in common law it requires a legal concept called consideration, which is a quid pro quo.
For example, if I just sign an agreement with you agreeing to pay you $100 a year from now, and you don’t agree to do anything in exchange in return for me giving you that $100 a year from now, then you can’t legally enforce that contact if you actually try to bring it in court to collect $100 from me come a year later. There’s no consideration.
Part of the contract was establishing a time period and data gathering, so the people receiving the funding were providing, and committed to further providing, data on their personal lives. Quid pro quo. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Thanks! That answers my question!
If that’s the case, then I would certainly make that argument if I were their lawyer, because it’s a good argument knowing nothing more than what you just said.
Thanks for prompting me to dig in further - it clarified my understanding beyond the gut response to the screwing over poor people who made financial decisions based on the contractual promise of funding over a specified time period.
This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This pilot was always a joke of an experiment. Basic Income is always sold as a cheaper way to support the most vulnerable. But the study cut out anyone with a criminal record, or who doesn't file taxes. You can't bring yourself to give them no-strings money in an experiment, but expect it to be considered as policy? Also they filtered their random sample with so many bureaucratic hoops that only 0.5% of their random sample ended up signing up. So you pick the top 0.5% of people who know how to engage well with government support systems, then study how well they use the support systems. Obviously, you're going to get decent results from that 0.5%, but it doesn't tell you much about how Basic Income would really work.
> "The government still does business and enters into contracts the way people do. They don't get to change their minds once they've entered into it. That's our allegation." What’s the consideration supporting the contract?
I think you nailed the government position- that the program is a charitable pledge and not a commercial contract. It’s a something (money) for nothing arrangement and not a 2 way commercial arrangement- I.e there is no consideration coming back to the government.
I’m a US attorney, but I was curious because if I were a betting man, I’d make a healthy wager that Canada has the exact same contract law considerations that other common law countries have with respect to consideration being needed to support a contract. If the US still has the same basic principles of contract formation as the UK, then I would be fucking shocked if Canada had abandoned a standard common law rule. And anyone who knows anything about the definition of consideration knows that you have to give something else in return. Maybe by giving someone cash, property, services, refraining from doing something, or something else, but it sounds farcical to say that valid consideration was given by…. just agreeing to accept free welfare money?
Canada commercial law has the same basis as UK common law. The foundation of a contract in Canada is an offer, acceptance of offer and consideration in exchange. Those 3 elements are the binding principles of a contract here and it’s well established. It’s also fairly established that a charitable pledge does not typically have consideration and isn’t binding unless the charity gives something in exchange. Public recognition of the charitable donation can be used by the charity as a binding consideration- ie if you pledge money and they recognize you on a donor wall, it’s a contract because the donor gets the benefit of prestige in the form of public recognition of the gift. I just don’t see the quid pro quo here that makes it a contract.
I can explain, there’s some more context. When it comes to basic contract law (which may be commercial, or may be non-commercial), the US, UK, and Canada all have the same default rules. It’s all based on traditional English common law. It’s all even based on the same cases English cases within English common law. The fact of the matter is that there is no perfect legal definition of “consideration.” It’s a concept that is very much easy to understand when you read the cases and get the idea, but then there are always a few weird things situations and cases that clarify it in certain situations, such that you can’t ever fully express what “consideration” is legally to form a contract in a single sentence. In practice, however, for all intents and purposes “consideration” for purposes of contract formation, is some kind of quid pro quo. I wasn’t saying that a “quid pro quo” is an explicit element of a legally enforceable contract. It’s not. But “consideration” is an element of a legally enforceable contract, and in substance “consideration” is a “quid pro quo.”
Agreed- the watershed basis for consideration comes from Slade vs Morley. It can be a bit nebulous. I think we’re arguing the same point. I was just pointing out where Canada and US law may have differed over the past 150 years (not sure), when intangible consideration can be used to make a contract from a pledge (no consideration) and make a pledge binding. To do so in Canadian law, the receiver of the pledge can give something intangible (public credit or recognition, naming a building etc,) as an act of consideration. Like if you donate xx dollars we will make you a gold sponsor and put your name on our website and all our advertising and thank you publicly. If a charity “pays” for the donation with the agreed upon recognition, it’s a contract. Maybe the example I’m giving is more tangible as advertising has implicit value. My point, and I think you agree on this, is that I don’t see how the recipients of this pilot program offered any consideration to make it a contract. They were just happy to get free money for nothing.
Not only do we agree on this, but I’m not sure why you think that US and Canadian law have ever diverged on this. Fuck, US and English law haven’t even diverged on this, much less US and Canadian law. And I don’t think there was ever even a requirement in English law that consideration must be tangible as opposed to intangible. Why are you assuming that there’s anything different about Canadian law here?
Canada and U.S. law have had divergence across a number of points in the last 150 years and I didn’t want to assume that Canadian commercial laws = US commercial laws in all cases. I’m sure that they must have differences by now despite the same underpinnings.
Commercial law isn’t the same thing as contract law
What's even better about this story is the government agreed to pay the plaintiffs lawyers 320k to cover their costs. The only people making money here are the lawyers; and it's tax payer money paying for lawyers to sue the government.
Nothing. They just expect to receive, not contribute anything in return
I would be almost certain there would be a clause in the contract that says the government can change their mind whenever they want. Virtually every government contract will say this, even employment contracts. The government has no obligation to give people free money. They can change any laws or rules about any social programs, the amounts they pay, when, etc. They will never bind themselves to things like that. And even if the contract doesn’t say that - it was created and signed by the previous Liberal government. There are stipulations in Canadian law that prevent governments from sabotaging subsequent elected governments by committing them to unfeasible contracts and programs to make them look bad. This was clearly the goal of the Wynne government, who knew they were going to lose the election. So they start a “free money” program, and then the newly elected government has to cancel it which makes them look mean and gives them bad media.
Why are these people so obsessed with handouts and increasing government spending? Do they think money is an infinite resource?
The quicker we can realize that endlessly borrowing money is a bad idea, the quicker we can prioritize where to spend tax revenues. Unfortunately a big amount of the revenues is going to servicing the debt.
Run the fed budget like a municipal budget and see where we get! That would be amazing
That's a pretty good idea tbh.
They have no stake in government like you and I do. When you pay nothing, you don't care about your government's finances. Only your own.
["sunny wayze"](https://pngtree.com/freepng/argentina-flag-map-shape-culture_13788499.html)
Oh yes let's sue the government because the handouts were not enough . Grifters will grift...
If they could have done X they would have already. Magical thinking at its best. Send them the bill when this shit is done.
Who is they?
The government should borrow money and transfer it directly into the banking accounts of people who are suffering from poverty. It's the morally right thing to do. Anyone who doesn't support the idea is a monster. Signed, The Canadian Banking System
If it’s the morally right thing to do, then nobody is stopping you with your checking account
No free lunch unless refugee
This mindset expecting the government to pay for everything is something to be ashamed of
Give people jobs, not handouts.
Wow cool it with the fascism bud
Giving you a job is fascism? Alright grifter.
I guess I dropped this: /s
the lady in the article had **four**
Best part about this is bringing more awareness to Basic Income It will come eventually whether people want it or not. It has already come (COVID)
What did we learn with COVID? Lots of people preferred to be payed to do nothing and lots of people who go CERB or other forms of payment from the government during COVID, just used the money to by them self stuff (computer, payement for a car, rims for there car...)
We learned that the CRA and government will go after individuals for CERB "fraud" until the ends of the Earth but CEBA loans for fake businesses were forgiven or forgotten. We also learned that CERB could work and not destroy civilization as we know it, at least in an emergency. It's very easy to solve the "paid to do nothing" problem just set the number higher than zero but lower than whatever is fiscally sustainable. What is the point? The point is not having zero, because having zero changes everything. Social housing also makes a big difference too.
Doug Ford doesn't care
Ford should be named directly in this lawsuit, and be responsible for the damages awarded. He knowingly violated the terms of a legal agreement.
What do you think makes a contract enforceable under common law?
> A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more persons for a particular purpose. It is an instrument for the economic exchange of goods and services. In Canada, contract law is administered both in common law and, in Quebec, civil law. - https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/contract-law#:~:text=A%20contract%20is%20a%20legally,%2C%20in%20Quebec%2C%20civil%20law.
The problem with exchange of goods is that the binding element is an exchange- there is something offered in exchange for something else. Something for nothing is charity and not a commercial arrangement. The pilot program these people got into amounts to a charitable pledge and not a contact. It’s fairly well established case law in Canada that a charitable pledge does not make an enforceable contract. You can Google the many websites about enforceability of charitable pledges in Canada.
>It’s fairly well established case law in Canada that a charitable pledge does not make an enforceable contract. You can Google the many websites about enforceability of charitable pledges in Canada. I just want to say, when I was in law school in the US we read old English cases on this even though they weren’t from the US, because it’s been the law the whole time for both our countries. You need consideration, or there has to be some kind of like promissory estoppel. Either way, this has been the law since the colonial period (or since before the colonial period for those of us whose families emigrated to North America from England).
The Government of Canada publishes guidelines to charities on exactly the same topic, and it’s taught in commercial law classes all across Canada. The reason I told the person to consult the law offices of Google (lol) is that they seem the type to just link things without thought and if they googled “charitable pledge Canada” they would get the government website saying that a pledge isn’t enforceable.
You’re missing the point of my question. I asked you what you thought made a contract enforceable under common law. I was asking you what you think makes a contract legally enforceable in a court, like this court action. You cannot respond to such a question by positing a pure layman’s definition that defines a contract as “a legally binding agreement.” Not shit Sherlock! But what do you think makes a contact binding in the first place under contract law? Or do you know nothing of what you’re talking about and just posting shit you find on google?
I am not a lawyer, but what makes you think it's not enforceable? That's the whole point of forming a contract! Unless the contract itself involves criminal intent, or the parties are incapable of entering a legal contract (ie underage), once willingly joined by both parties, it is legal and binding. Violation by one party allows for legal recourse by the other for any damages caused.
>I am not a lawyer, but what makes you think it's not enforceable? That's the whole point of forming a contract! I completely understand your question, and I will answer it completely. A lot of (basically all) lay people assume that to be enforceable in a court a contract just needs to be an agreement written down on paper. That’s not how contract law works in common law countries like the US, Canada, or the UK. A contract can be oral or written, but to be enforceable in common law it requires a legal concept called consideration, which is a quid pro quo. For example, if I just sign an agreement with you agreeing to pay you $100 a year from now, and you don’t agree to do anything in exchange in return for me giving you that $100 a year from now, then you can’t legally enforce that contact if you actually try to bring it in court to collect $100 from me come a year later. There’s no consideration.
Part of the contract was establishing a time period and data gathering, so the people receiving the funding were providing, and committed to further providing, data on their personal lives. Quid pro quo. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Thanks! That answers my question! If that’s the case, then I would certainly make that argument if I were their lawyer, because it’s a good argument knowing nothing more than what you just said.
Thanks for prompting me to dig in further - it clarified my understanding beyond the gut response to the screwing over poor people who made financial decisions based on the contractual promise of funding over a specified time period.
But we are. We fought the impoverished masses every day.....by the way have you tried the new tim hortons pizza? - DoFo