Time: Thu Oct 31 07:11:22 1996 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: LLAW: autarchic: Traveling is a right [4/7] Cc: Bcc: liberty lists <snip> >--------- Begin forwarded message ---------- >From: autarchic >To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org >Subject: Traveling is a right [4/7] >Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:20:42 EST >Message-ID: <19961030.141739.4327.17.autarchic@juno.com> > > >>> Part 4 of 7... > > 33.1 It must be an agreement. > 33.2 There must be at least two parties to the contract. > 33.3 There must be a consideration. > 33.4 There must be an obligation or thing to be done. >34. Several types of contracts exist but all must contain the >essential features listed. Contracts can be classified under three >principal categories: > 34.1 Express > 34.2 Implied > 34.3 Quasi >35. Quasi contracts, while being called contracts are not really >contracts, will not be considered in this discussion of contracts but >will be considered in a separation section later. > UNILATERAL & BILATERAL CONTRACTS >36. There can also be unilateral and bilateral contracts that is >presumed can exist under some or all the above headings. Let us >examine each above types of contracts to see if the license obtained >by this Sovereign falls under any of the >categories of contract. > > 36.1 An express contract is one in which the agreement > of the parties is fully stated in words, and it may be > either written or oral, or partly written and partly oral. > See: > Bergh Business Law 30. > > 36.2 A true implied contract is an agreement of the > parties arrived at from their acts and conduct viewed in the > light of surrounding circumstances, and not from their words > either spoken or written. Like an express contract, it grows > out of the intention of the parties to the transaction and > there must be a meeting of the minds. > See: > McKevitt et al v. Golden Age Breweries, Inc., 126 P.2d 1077 > (1942). > > 36.3 License -- Authority to do some act or carry on > some trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited > statute, except with the permission of the civil authority > or which would otherwise be unlawful. > See: > Bouvier's Law Dict. > >37. With these definitions in mind, let us examine a driver's >license to see if it is a contract. The driver's license itself is a >small plastic card approximately 55 millimeters by 86 millimeters in >size. It contains the words North Carolina Motor Vehicle Driver's >license; the name, address, signature, and physical description of the >user; a pair of identifying numbers; a photograph; and the signature >of the director of the Department of Law Enforcement. Obviously, this >cannot be an express agreement because there are no statements to >constitute an agreement. Are there two parties to the "contract?" >There are two signatures but both are copies, thus invalidating the >"contract" so there are no parties to the "contract." Is there a >consideration? What has the State given this Sovereign in return for >this Sovereign's obligation? Some may suggest that the State has given >this Sovereign the privilege of driving on the streets or highways in >North Carolina. But this Sovereign already has the "RIGHT" to drive on >the streets or highways in North Carolina, and the State cannot >require this Sovereign to give up a "RIGHT" to obtain a privilege. >38. An Iowa statute that requires that every foreign corporation >named in it shall as a condition for obtaining a permit to transact >business in Iowa, stipulate that it will not remove into the federal >court certain suits that it would by the laws of the United States >have a "RIGHT" to a permit dependant upon the surrender by the foreign >corporation of a privilege secured to it by the Constitution and laws >of the United States. Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Barron v. >Burnside 121 U.S. 186. > > 38.1 The full significance of the clause law of the > land is said by Ruffin, C. J. to be that statutes that would > deprive a Citizen of the "RIGHTS" of person or property > without a regular trial according to the course and usage of > the common law would not be the law of the land. (Emphasis > added). > See: > Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. > 15, 25 AM Dec 677. > >39. It would be foolish for this Sovereign to exchange a "RIGHT" >for a privilege since it would mean giving up valuable property in >exchange for something having less value. Is it possible for this >Sovereign to do such a thing? > > 39.1 Consent -- In criminal Law. No act shall be deemed > a crime if done with the consent of the party injured, > unless it be committed in public, and is likely to provoke a > breach of the peace, or tends to the injury of a third > party; provided no consent can be given which will deprive > the consenter of any unalienable "RIGHT." (Emphasis added). > See: > Bouvier's Law Dictionary. > >40. Thus, even if this Sovereign wanted to do so, he could not >give up his "RIGHT" to travel on the streets or highways in North >Carolina or exchange it for the privilege of having a driver's >license. Thus, in exchange for the supposed obligation of this >Sovereign, the State has given nothing. Thus, there is no >consideration. >41. It may be contended that the seal on the driver's license is >sufficient consideration by the State. It is true that under the >common law, the question of consideration could not be raised >concerning a contract under seal. The seal provided conclusive >presumption of a consideration. Still, North Carolina has abolished by >statute the common law presumption of consideration and this statute >is binding upon all officers and employees of the State. So, though a >seal may be present, it is not evidence of consideration in North >Carolina. Of course, the document in question is a contrived and >copied document and lacks validity in any case as a contract. >42. As to an obligation, since the license contains no statement >of agreement, since there are no parties to any agreement, and since >there is no consideration, there can be no obligation. The driver's >license thus is not a contract since it fails to contain any of the >four essential features of a contract. >43. Can the driver's license be an implied contract? The same >elements must exist in an implied contract as exist in an express >contract. The only difference is that an implied contract is not >written or spoken and the elements of the contract are shown by the >acts and conduct of the parties involved. With respect to this >Sovereign, there was certainly no meeting of the minds else this brief >would not result. It was never the intention of this Sovereign to give >up constitutional "RIGHTS" to accept a privilege from the State. Such >an action would be ridiculous. This could only be done in a >socialistic state. There has been no implied agreement in a free >society. It is possible that there were two parties to the supposed >contract, the State and this Sovereign. There was no consideration in >the implied contract for the same reasons that there was no >consideration in the express contract. >44. An obligation is the thing to be done. It may be to pay >money, to do work, or to deliver goods; or it may be to refrain from >doing something that the person contracting had a "RIGHT" to do. Some >may say that the State was obligated to allow this Sovereign to drive >on the streets or highways in North Carolina and that this Sovereign >was obligated to obey all the statutes contained in the North Carolina >General Statutes. It would be just as easy to say that the State could >not be obligated to allow this Sovereign to travel on the streets or >highways in North Carolina because they did not have the "RIGHT" or >the power to prevent him from doing so. >45. If the State cannot prevent this Sovereign from traveling on >the streets or highways in North Carolina, they do not have any >discretion in the matter and do not have the choice of whether to >obligate themselves or not. Thus, the obligation of the State cannot >be to grant this Sovereign the privilege of traveling on the streets >or highways in North Carolina. The obligation of the State cannot be >to refrain from prohibiting this Sovereign from traveling on the >streets or highways in North Carolina since the State did not have the >"RIGHT" to do this at first. >46. It is the contention of this Sovereign that the only >obligation that this Sovereign incurs when using a vehicle upon the >streets or highways in North Carolina is the Common Law obligation to >refrain from any act that causes another person to lose life, liberty, >or property. In complying with this obligation, this Sovereign does >comply with many statutes in the North Carolina General Statutes since >they are, for the most part, only common sense rules by which this >Sovereign avoids doing damage to others. >47. Still, this acquiescence to some statutes of The North >Carolina General Statutes should not be construed as evidence of a >contractual obligation by this Sovereign. Neither should it be >construed as acquiescence to all the statutes of the North Carolina >General Statutes or to any of them always. Instead, it is merely >evidence of a want of this Sovereign to travel safely and to do harm >to no one. >48. Thus, the actions of this Sovereign do not supply >unambiguous evidence of a contract with the State. Instead, the >actions can, with equal weight, be said to be evidence of the fact >that this Sovereign was complying with Common Law requirement that he >does harm to no one. The driver's license is not an implied contract >because there is no consideration, there may be possibly be two >parties, but there is no consideration, and there is not clear >evidence of an obligation. Three of the four elements necessary for a >contract are missing. >49. The question now becomes whether the driver's license >application is a contract. In completing this document, the applicant >makes several statements and signs the paper upon which these >statements are written under oath. The statements concern the >identity, physical description, address, ability and experience in >driving a vehicle, and one statement on the physical condition of the >applicant. None of the statements are as an agreement. >50. The application form contains the signature of the applicant >and the signature of the person taking the oath of the applicant. The >reverse side of the application contains the results of a vision test >and rudimentary physical examination with the results of a driving >test. These results are signed by the examiner and not by the >applicant. >51. Thus the application takes the form of an affidavit instead >of a contract. But let us see if the elements of a contract are >present in the application. > 51.1 There is no agreement. > 51.2 There are not two parties. > 51.3 There is no consideration. > 51.4 There is no obligation. >52. Since none of the necessary elements of a contract are >present, the application does not constitute a contract. >53. The only other document involved in obtaining a driver's >license is the document, part of which is copied to make the actual >driver's license. It contains, besides the information that is used in > > >>> Continued to next message... >--------- End forwarded message ----------
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail