Swap It Out: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{popsong|Swap It Out|Justin Bieber|30474835}} | {{a|popsong|{{popsong|Swap It Out|Justin Bieber|30474835}}}}It’s an honest try, but on balance it still falls into the “mangle” category: Mr. Bieber seems to have no real concept of the binding nature of [[legal obligation|legal obligations]], and at best is woolly about the implications of [[derivative]]s as speculative or wagering contracts, at least where there are no plausible [[representations]] they they are being used for ''bona fide'' [[hedging]] purposes. | ||
And ultimately [[swap]]ping hearts, which among young, uncynical and unscarred people such as Mr Bieber and his “beliebers”, are largely [[fungible]], the {{isdaprov|transaction}} seems to be light on [[substance]] so there’s a question of adequate [[consideration]] | And ultimately [[swap]]ping hearts, which among young, uncynical and unscarred people such as Mr Bieber and his “beliebers”, are largely [[fungible]], the {{isdaprov|transaction}} seems to be light on [[substance]] so there’s a question of adequate [[consideration]] (though “his whole world”, if accompanied by the [[intention to create legal relations]], would certainly do.) | ||
With that in mind, judge for yourself: | With that in mind, judge for yourself: | ||
Latest revision as of 14:49, 28 October 2021
|
Swap It Out by Justin Bieber
|
It’s an honest try, but on balance it still falls into the “mangle” category: Mr. Bieber seems to have no real concept of the binding nature of legal obligations, and at best is woolly about the implications of derivatives as speculative or wagering contracts, at least where there are no plausible representations they they are being used for bona fide hedging purposes.
And ultimately swapping hearts, which among young, uncynical and unscarred people such as Mr Bieber and his “beliebers”, are largely fungible, the transaction seems to be light on substance so there’s a question of adequate consideration (though “his whole world”, if accompanied by the intention to create legal relations, would certainly do.)
With that in mind, judge for yourself:
- Open up to me, it’s all you gotta do[1]
- Give[2] me all your heart, swap mine out with you
- Swap it out with you
- Swap it out with you
- Come into my world
- I'll give my world[3] to you
- We can swap swap swap it out
- I can show you what I’m talking about[4]
- Be obliged just to show you how
- Follow my lead, that’s what you oughta do
- No pressure [5]
- Swapping out ain’t ever been a crime[6]
- If it was then I’d do the time
- Throw away the keys as long as I’m here with you forever.
See also
References
- ↑ Ok, ok: you also have to complete KYC, deliver Section 3(d) documents, comply with all conditions precedent. And my obligations are subject, of course, to Section 2(a)(iii). But apart from that, it is all you gotta do.
- ↑ “Give”? Under a swap it’s an obligation, not a discretion.
- ↑ Consideration?
- ↑ Oral representations.
- ↑ Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. also unconscionable conduct, duress etc.
- ↑ Well, not a crime, per se, but arguably inconsistent with precepts of Shari'ah law which may prevail in some jurisdictions, subject to heavy regulatory scrutiny in others. Note also that generally gambling contracts are unenforceable as a matter of public policy.