Too bizarre to let pass: in Kent, England, 53-year-old Christine Ryder filed a breach of contract complaint against Kevin Reeves, 40, for accepting £20,000 from her in exchange for his promise to engage a hitman to murder her, or do it himself. Instead Reeves skipped out without doing the deed, and a judge ordered him to pay Ryder £2,000 in compensation. (Alan Hamilton, “A contract is still a contract – even if it is a contract to kill”, The Times (U.K.), Jan. 17; Longhorn Law, Jan. 17).
UK: What, no specific performance?
Too bizarre to let pass: in Kent, England, 53-year-old Christine Ryder filed a breach of contract complaint against Kevin Reeves, 40, for accepting £20,000 from her in exchange for his promise to engage a hitman to murder her, or do it himself. Instead Reeves skipped out without doing the deed, and a judge ordered him […]
3 Comments
I thought courts leave parties to an illegal bargain where they find them.
I am not impressed by an assassin whose incompetence gets reported to his wife.
Had they lived in the US:
1) illegality of the end result of performance (murder) is an absolute defense to performance of a contract, voiding it automatically; mental illness all around might make it voidable by a court (true even at the British Court of Protection), with an appointed guardian putting an end to the shopping for assassins;
2) they could sue their psychiatrist if the doses of their medications were not increased within a reasonable time,
3) they would both be subject to involuntary commitment to a mental ward, as mentally ill and dangerous to self or others (not to mention annoying to the rest of us).
Somewhere, British and US contract doctrine must have diverged. I don’t understand the ruling that the entire amount did not have to be refunded. It would not make sense unless that is the only money Reeves had, and the judge did not want to get herself involved with the enforcement of more timed payments by a high living mental patient.
From the story, this ruling seems to be based on the premise of fraud. The defendant took money from the plaintiff saying he would kill her, but never had the intention to do so. The fact that he defrauded he based on the promise to kill her still makes figuring actual damages somewhat interesting.