Court: contract written in blood unenforceable

Two Korean businessmen go out drinking.  One of them had lost $170,000 in the businesses of the other.  The businessman who lost his friend’s money called over a waiter for a safety pin, pricked his finger and wrote out a contract in blood and Korean characters.  He later wrote up the agreement in ink and the agreement was to pay back his friend the lost $170,000.   Was this a valid contract?

The court concluded that, “the trial court properly decided Kim’s lawsuit was based entirely on a gratuitous unenforceable promise.”  Or from my contracts course, I would say this new contract lacked consideration.  Only the terms of the initial agreement where the two men made their business deal was binding.  The “blood contract” might have been a moral obligation but not a legal one.  But this could be a great law school example case! 


Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: