Readers of the Old Testament might be amazed when they reach the story of Lot in Genesis 19:30-38 and learn that Lot's daughters slept with their father. Most accept the simple explanation that they slept with their father because they thought that there were no more men in the land. There is, however, a more satisfying explanation.
The story begins when two angels travel to Sodom to verify the cruelty of the people of that city; if they find the people to be cruel, they are to destroy the city. law firm consultant in thailand The city dwellers demand that Lot give them his two male guests, so that the townspeople can 'know' (sodomize) them. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to the mob outside his home in order to save his guest. The daughters' fates can be inferred from reading the story of the 'concubine in the hill' (Judg. 19). The city's cruelty is proven and the city is condemned.
The angels tell Lot to escape to the mountain before they burn down the city; but Lot asks to go to the city of Zoar, which the angels promise not to destroy. After the destruction of Sodom, Lot and his two daughters leave Zoar, and they go to live in a cave in the mountain (Gen. 19: 30). There the elder daughter says to the younger one: "Our father is old, and there is not a man on the earth to come in unto us" (Gen. 19:31). This is normally interpreted to mean that, because there are no other men in the land, she decides to sleep with her father in order to preserve their family lineage. However, the sentence continues with the phrase "after the manner of all the earth." This phrase indicates that the "lack of men" explanation is false. If there are actually no men on earth, then there is no need to add this phrase to the sentence. The first part of the sentence already indicates that they are discussing their inability to extend their bloodline. If the passage were only discussing pregnancy, there would be no need for this extra phrase about method. Moreover, the daughters had been in the city of Zoar and they saw men after the destruction of Sodom; there were obviously men around. The end of the sentence should not be interpreted to mean copulation in the manner of the animals, both because of this evidence and because of the positive light in which it is presented. The end of the sentence suggests that the girls thought that there were no men who would marry them in a proper and respectful way, as was customary in the land, by asking their hand in marriage and offering gifts.
It is also important to recognize that Lot's daughters lived in a cave, which was far away from civilization and did not have a protective door like their house in Sodom. Their father could offer them as virgins to criminals in order to save his life, as he had done before. The daughters therefore would have felt as though they had to get married as soon as possible, and the only one suitable for them was their father himself. By marrying them, he would no longer be able to lie about their virginity. In addition, Lot would not be able to kill them and their offspring, because they would be his own children and his only heirs. Once the elder daughter slept with her father, the younger one felt she had no choice but to do the same.
The defense of Lot normally drawn from the Biblical passages--that he was drunk and so did not know what he was doing--does not stand up to closer inspection. If he were truly so intoxicated that he did not know what was occurring, he would have had a difficult time performing sexually. Also, if he hadn't been aware of his actions, he would have taken his anger out on his daughters when he discovered they were pregnant. There is no indication in the Bible that Lot was angry with his daughters, or even surprised by their pregnancies.
The story of Lot's daughter is parallel to the story of Tamar and Judah (Gen. 38): Tamar slept with her father-in-law, became pregnant, and gave birth to twins. And these incestuous family lines, perhaps surprisingly, led all the way to King David: David was a descendent of Ruth the Moabite, who was herself a descendent of Lot through his affair with his elder daughter, and Boaz, who was a descendent of Judah and Tamar (Ruth 4:18-22).
As a business owner, you probably enter into contractual relationships every day. Many of you deal with written contracts on a fairly regular basis. However, do you understand the basic concepts of contract law and what makes a legally binding contract? Do you know what to look for when reviewing contracts prepared by the other party, or your own attorney that make it a legally binding contract?
Under Wisconsin contract law, legally binding contracts, whether oral or written, require three basic components: offer, acceptance, and consideration. An "offer" requires that one party offers to provide something of value to another party, which is then "accepted" by that other party. "Consideration" is what the two parties are obligated to exchange with each other as part of the contract. Consideration must be something of value, and the consideration must be mutual, i.e. both sides must provide something of value under the contract. For example, an agreement whereby a party agrees to pay you $1,000.00, without receiving anything in exchange, is by definition not a contract.
Typically, consideration takes the form of money paid in exchange for the provision of goods or services. This holds true for multi-million dollar transactions between international conglomerates, and when you take your car in for repairs by a mechanic. One corporation agrees to pay millions of dollars for another corporation to develop specific software or some other product, and you pay your mechanic to replace your spark plugs. In either case, there is an offer, acceptance, and consideration, and therefore an enforceable and legally binding contract. Keep in mind, however, that legally binding contracts may require consideration other than money, for example when two parties agree to exchange parcels of real estate.
Under Wisconsin contract law, all contracts also come with an implied duty of "good faith and fair dealing" on the part of both parties to the contract. While this is admittedly a rather broad phrase, in essence it means that, once an agreement has been reached, both parties have an obligation to make reasonable efforts to fulfill their respective obligations, and to avoid taking actions that would hinder the performance of the contract.
Parties to contracts have the right to enforce them in courts of law. Generally, the remedies for breach of contract take one of two forms, either specific performance or monetary damages. Specific performance is an equitable remedy most often awarded in cases involving real estate transactions, and consists of the Court ordering the breaching party to fulfill its obligations, i.e. "specifically perform" the contract.
In most cases, the remedy for breach of contract is money damages, usually in the form of "consequential" damages. Consequential damages are those damages that flow naturally from one party's breach of a contract, and can include the cost to replace a product that was never delivered, the cost to repair a defective product, and any resulting lost profits. However, consequential damages must be "reasonably foreseeable" at the time the contract was created in order to be recoverable.
With certain exceptions, oral contracts may be just as valid and legally binding as a written contract. As an attorney, I recommend that whenever possible, contractual obligations be set forth in a written document signed by both parties. As a general rule, courts are required to look only at the written contract itself to interpret the parties' obligations, unless there is some ambiguity in the contract. In the absence of a written agreement, or when an ambiguity exists in a written contract, the court may look to extrinsic evidence, including the testimony of the parties, to determine their intent. In other words, the judge or the jury will be determining the fate of the parties, as opposed to the parties themselves. Therefore, written contracts that clearly define the obligations of the parties are almost always preferable to oral contracts.
I will close with a suggestion. Never ignore the "boilerplate" language that you often find at the end of contracts. While these provisions may seem like an afterthought added by the attorneys to make the contract longer, they are often of vital importance, specifying among other things where written notices (for example, terminating the contract) must be sent under the contract, to where a lawsuit must be filed and what jurisdiction's laws will govern the contract. While it is important to review the detailed provisions of the contract, it can be just as important to understand the "standard" provisions at the end of the contract.