Did you see this?

[Cypress]

I have been in love too and when the relationship is going bad couples are supposed to talk about it and you'd be much better off talking to a therapist every week than cheating on your spouse. You are giving this woman a free pass for cheating Darla and deciding that she must be right that it was his gambling that caused all this. If she didn't have the gnads to belly up to a therapist or a divorce attorney BEFORE fucking around then the third parties beware.

Soc, you are usually a very insightful poster who nails most things correctly.

You couldn't be more wrong here, IMO. The only people responsible for honoring the vows they took, are the two spouses. Third parties are not responsible for honoring those vows. Pointing the finger of blame at temptation is a cop out. This woman - or any spouse who does so - made the choice to cheat on her vows. Its not the third parties legal responsiblity to honor anyone's wedding vows. It may be tacky and inappropriate to hit on somebody eles'e spouse, but its certainly not legally wrong.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

OK, so blame her then. She chose to look outside her marriage. That "alienation of affection" concept seems to assume that the person (woman or man) was "enticed" away from the relationship and is not an adult, and has no mind or will of his/her own by which to decide what to do, therefore was easy prey for the third party. That's ridiculous.

SEX

Yeah, it drives people to do stupid things. You seem to be under the illusion that everything we do is rational. Don't pursue married people and you'll be fine.

 

[Socrtease]

Ok if I and party B are involved in a contract for a period of months or years for the supplying of widgets, and I have given party B a really good price for my widgets based on the length of the contract and the contract forsees the relationship as exclusive, and then party C comes along and offers widgets for even less over the same period KNOWING that Party B and I have an exclusive contract then I can sue Party B for breach and I can sue party C for Tortious interference so long as I can prove Party C knew of the contract between me and B. Same concept. She went somewhere else for her widgets and the Millionaire KNEW she had a contract for her husbands widgets. He interfered and should be held liable.

 

[Thorn]

SEX

Yeah, it drives people to do stupid things. You seem to be under the illusion that everything we do is rational. Don't pursue married people and you'll be fine.

Or --- don't cheat on your spouse and you'll be fine. Or --- if things are that bad in the marriage, get out of it and then have your affair. Of course sex can be very compelling to someone whose life is unhappy, but it seems in this instance the "wronged" husband (whether he is or not is beyond the scope of this thread; we don't have enough info) is going after the inappropriate person. His wife is not his property; presumably she is an adult and is capable of making adult decisions. One of those is to honor the vows of the marriage unless and until the marriage is in formal dissolution.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

For an alienation of affection tort to be succesful:


(1) the marriage entailed love between the spouses in some degree; (2) the spousal love was alienated and destroyed; and (3) defendant’s malicious conduct contributed to or caused the loss of affection.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Or --- don't cheat on your spouse and you'll be fine. Or --- if things are that bad in the marriage, get out of it and then have your affair. Of course sex can be very compelling to someone whose life is unhappy, but it seems in this instance the "wronged" husband (whether he is or not is beyond the scope of this thread; we don't have enough info) is going after the inappropriate person. His wife is not his property; presumably she is an adult and is capable of making adult decisions. One of those is to honor the vows of the marriage unless and until the marriage is in formal dissolution.

Then marriage isn't a contract.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Ok if I and party B are involved in a contract for a period of months or years for the supplying of widgets, and I have given party B a really good price for my widgets based on the length of the contract and the contract forsees the relationship as exclusive, and then party C comes along and offers widgets for even less over the same period KNOWING that Party B and I have an exclusive contract then I can sue Party B for breach and I can sue party C for Tortious interference so long as I can prove Party C knew of the contract between me and B. Same concept. She went somewhere else for her widgets and the Millionaire KNEW she had a contract for her husbands widgets. He interfered and should be held liable.

"She went somewhere else for her widgets... she had a contract for her husbands widgets"

What are these "widgets" you're refering too?

 

[Cypress]

spouses aren't widgets Soc. And a marriage isn't a financial transaction.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Naw, she had a contract for her husbands "widget".

 

[Thorn]

Ok if I and party B are involved in a contract for a period of months or years for the supplying of widgets, and I have given party B a really good price for my widgets based on the length of the contract and the contract forsees the relationship as exclusive, and then party C comes along and offers widgets for even less over the same period KNOWING that Party B and I have an exclusive contract then I can sue Party B for breach and I can sue party C for Tortious interference so long as I can prove Party C knew of the contract between me and B. Same concept. She went somewhere else for her widgets and the Millionaire KNEW she had a contract for her husbands widgets. He interfered and should be held liable.

That's pretty thin, don't you think? This isn't about widgets, an arms-length commodity, and price. You'll have to admit that the marriage contract encompasses far more than sex, in fact under certain circumstances such as serious illness can proceed pretty well in its absence. You'd also have to show (preponderance of evidence in a civil case, yes?) that the third party actively pursued Party B to the extent that would have been necessary to interfere with a normally healthy marriage. What did he offer her? In the widget case you have a tangible, a lower price for the commodity. Whatever seems to have been involved here was intangible, or at least so far as the article showed, and would be hell to introduce as acceptable evidence.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

People just hate cheatin hoe gold diggers, Thorn.

There are some instances where, for example, the wife may have been a homemaker all her life, so she never went to college or got any work experience, and then one day that husband decides he doesn't care anymore and just dumps her on the street and runs off with some 20 year old.

 

[Socrtease]

People just hate cheatin hoe gold diggers, Thorn.

There are some instances where, for example, the wife may have been a homemaker all her life, so she never went to college or got any work experience, and then one day that husband decides he doesn't care anymore and just dumps her on the street and runs off with some 20 year old.

And when he does that he pays out his ass and other orifaces unless there was a prenup and it specifically talked about infidelity being included. When a husband of twenty plus years leaves a wife/homemaker courts almost universally give spousal support. Hell I know of one case where the Judge in a divorce case figured what it would have cost to hire child care, a maid, a cook, etc., and then talked about "intangibles" like intimacy and came up with a huge number for a relationship of over 32 years, after hubby decided to run off with a 27 year old intern at his law office. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 

[Cypress]

People just hate cheatin hoe gold diggers, Thorn.

There are some instances where, for example, the wife may have been a homemaker all her life, so she never went to college or got any work experience, and then one day that husband decides he doesn't care anymore and just dumps her on the street and runs off with some 20 year old.

That's exactly what alimony addresses.

I can't see any reason to sue the twenty year old.

 

[Thorn]

That's exactly what alimony addresses.

I can't see any reason to sue the twenty year old.

Exactly!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

She ain't got no $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

That's what it's all bout.

 

[Cancel7]

I have been in love too and when the relationship is going bad couples are supposed to talk about it and you'd be much better off talking to a therapist every week than cheating on your spouse. You are giving this woman a free pass for cheating Darla and deciding that she must be right that it was his gambling that caused all this. If she didn't have the gnads to belly up to a therapist or a divorce attorney BEFORE fucking around then the third parties beware.

I agree with the first part of what you say here. But not everyone is capable of talking about it. Maybe she tried and he couldn't or wouldn't. Maybe he tried and she couldn't. Maybe he promised her a thousand times he'd stop gambling and broke her heart each time. Maybe she couldn't find the courage to get a divorce until she fell in love with someone else. I'm just not in the position to judge.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I agree with the first part of what you say here. But not everyone is capable of talking about it. Maybe she tried and he couldn't or wouldn't. Maybe he tried and she couldn't. Maybe he promised her a thousand times he'd stop gambling and broke her heart each time. Maybe she couldn't find the courage to get a divorce until she fell in love with someone else. I'm just not in the position to judge.

I still can't get over his talk of widgets.

You'd understand if you were an 18 year old... MAN (says this with a deep voice).

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Where's da bling, ya'll?

 

[Socrtease]

I knew my widgets analogy would get some replies most riki tik.

 

[Cancel7]

This is crap. We give businesses the right to sue for tortious interference with a contract if a third party comes in and disrupts a contractual relationship between other businesses. marriage is a contract no different than that but with more serious consequences when
a third party knowingly interfers. Shit people get killed over this sort of thing. And do you think she would have divorced him if she hadn't been involved with her MILLIONAIRE boss? Do you think the millionaire boss didn't say "Go ahead and leave him baby. I can take care of you." But her working for someone that makes less than her hubby did and she may have screwed him but she would have NEVER left her husband for him.

Wait a minute, you don't know that. I left my very very well off fiance for someone who was actually poor. Now, maybe I am one of the few f'd up women (or men for all I know) who would do that, but it goes to show that you don't know that money was the reason. If the guy I left my fiance for was rich, you would say I would never have left if he wasn't. But in fact, I would have and did.