That's fair, and his people committed malpractice if they didn't walk him through these implications.
That's important, because its the very reasoning why prenups often get thrown out. Because the man has "more power" to maneuver the contract to his benefit, and the very act of being asked to sign one puts it "under duress" (which nobody comedians are likely under a lot of duress given if they don't sign they don't get a career).
I know you probably agree with me, so this is just me discussing things rather than contradicting you. The problem with this logic is that it makes it impossible for a contract to accomplish its intended purpose, because it become void the minute it does. That makes the contract worthless under all circumstances. A civil court would probably agree with me in Chappelle's case, and a family court would absolutely disagree with me in the case of a prenup. Family court bias being what it is, they count a refusal to marry in the absence of a prenup coercion that justifies throwing it out, which means it necessarily can't offer protection. I know I'm never going to put myself in a position where my future depends on a family court ruling against a woman.
The problem with this logic is that it makes it impossible for a contract to accomplish its intended purpose, because it become void the minute it does.
My issue with it is the inconsistency. Clearly we are a society recognize that contracts can and will be used abusively, but we only act on that sometimes.
Two regular people entering a room to sign a prenup are making a deal on something that should be upheld. A super rich guy bringing a teenage foreign girl into a room with his 6 lawyers and a 200 page document is something that is not quite as kosher and I think we can all recognize it as a case where the girl, despite having all the agency and responsibility stemming from it, is being screwed. Or guy even, as I'm sure ultra rich homos have done similar.
But that's what the entertainment industry does. Which is telling us that Corporations (who make the majority of contracts) are above the law and questioning, while any Contract us plebs make is under max scrutiny and easily tossed aside for the minorest of infractions. Obvious revelation of course, but not one I'll hold against Dave for falling on the wrong side of.
That's fair, and his people committed malpractice if they didn't walk him through these implications.
I know you probably agree with me, so this is just me discussing things rather than contradicting you. The problem with this logic is that it makes it impossible for a contract to accomplish its intended purpose, because it become void the minute it does. That makes the contract worthless under all circumstances. A civil court would probably agree with me in Chappelle's case, and a family court would absolutely disagree with me in the case of a prenup. Family court bias being what it is, they count a refusal to marry in the absence of a prenup coercion that justifies throwing it out, which means it necessarily can't offer protection. I know I'm never going to put myself in a position where my future depends on a family court ruling against a woman.
My issue with it is the inconsistency. Clearly we are a society recognize that contracts can and will be used abusively, but we only act on that sometimes.
Two regular people entering a room to sign a prenup are making a deal on something that should be upheld. A super rich guy bringing a teenage foreign girl into a room with his 6 lawyers and a 200 page document is something that is not quite as kosher and I think we can all recognize it as a case where the girl, despite having all the agency and responsibility stemming from it, is being screwed. Or guy even, as I'm sure ultra rich homos have done similar.
But that's what the entertainment industry does. Which is telling us that Corporations (who make the majority of contracts) are above the law and questioning, while any Contract us plebs make is under max scrutiny and easily tossed aside for the minorest of infractions. Obvious revelation of course, but not one I'll hold against Dave for falling on the wrong side of.