No reproductive rights for men

[The Paul]

How does that differ from the essential part of the agreement that was unsigned?

It may be different in Australia but in the US, verbal agreements can have the same weight or even supersede written agreements.

- - - Updated - - -

Written agreements or not, verbal agreements can be as binding and can supersede written agreements.

There are special circumstances where this can be a good idea.

In general, it's a fucking terrible idea. The consequence is you can never really enter into a formal agreement with anybody. You can specify as many eventualities as you like, draw up a contract, have a legal office verify everything is in order, sign in front of however many witnesses, whatever.

If the other party doesn't like the way things are going, or just feels like they can manage to force you into a deal that's better for them, all they need to do is draw up a contract more favorable to themselves and claim you promised to sign it. If they manage to convince the judge that you said some things you never really said, or if the judge just finds them particularly sympathetic, fuck your contract, you just agreed to the new terms.

 

[Toni]

How does that differ from the essential part of the agreement that was unsigned?

It may be different in Australia but in the US, verbal agreements can have the same weight or even supersede written agreements.

- - - Updated - - -

Written agreements or not, verbal agreements can be as binding and can supersede written agreements.

There are special circumstances where this can be a good idea.

In general, it's a fucking terrible idea. The consequence is you can never really enter into a formal agreement with anybody. You can specify as many eventualities as you like, draw up a contract, have a legal office verify everything is in order, sign in front of however many witnesses, whatever.

If the other party doesn't like the way things are going, or just feels like they can manage to force you into a deal that's better for them, all they need to do is draw up a contract more favorable to themselves and claim you promised to sign it. If they manage to convince the judge that you said some things you never really said, or if the judge just finds them particularly sympathetic, fuck your contract, you just agreed to the new terms.

Most contracts are drawn up with all due consideration to current law and case law and prevailing judicial opinion where the contract covers some controversial area.

In the case of technology assisted reproduction such as in vitro, surrogacy, etc., society and the law has not settled on how to deal with some very new and different situations.

It's a lousy situation. One person will lose something s/he values very highly.

 

[The Paul]

Most contracts are drawn up with all due consideration to current law and case law and prevailing judicial opinion where the contract covers some controversial area.

...and if one party's word that the other party told them they don't have to abide by the contract is good enough to waive the contract then none of that counts for anything.

In the case of technology assisted reproduction such as in vitro, surrogacy, etc., society and the law has not settled on how to deal with some very new and different situations.

It's a lousy situation. One person will lose something s/he values very highly.

...and there's a signed agreement as to who that person should be.

 

[Toni]

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the court was right or wrong. What I know is that the situation is not as black and white as you're trying to make it look, and pretending that there was obviously one and only one valid contract which was ignored for no good reason is dishonest and doesn't help your argument. Oral agreements or unsigned contracts can be legally binding under specific circumstances, and can supercede a mutually signed written contract, as even your own analogy shows.

No, it is actually fairly black and white. They had a signed contract. They were negotiating a change to that contract but couldn't come to an agreement about the terms. That means that the original contract remains in force and there is not a new contract.

It isn't black and white. There is a signed agreement, an unsigned agreement that one claims he said he would sign and the other denies. Added are multiple verbal agreements and the fact that he performed the most essential part of all agreements by donating sperm.

Further, if he did not intend to actually allow the implantation of the embryos, he committed fraud and any signed contract would be void.

You may disagree as much as you like but so far, two courts have agreed with Dunston's position.

And the whole crux of the matter rests upon the reason that the second agreement was unsigned. That is because he had conditions for his signing of it and those conditions were not met. Until those conditions are met, the unsigned agreement should not ever override the signed agreement.

...and if one party's word that the other party told them they don't have to abide by the contract is good enough to waive the contract then none of that counts for anything.

In the case of technology assisted reproduction such as in vitro, surrogacy, etc., society and the law has not settled on how to deal with some very new and different situations.

It's a lousy situation. One person will lose something s/he values very highly.

...and there's a signed agreement as to who that person should be.

Since you are unwilling to move off of that same position, all evidence and links providing you with information AND court rulings contrary to your position, there is no reason to continue this exchange.

 

[RavenSky]

Kindly provide evidence that he "refused" to sign it. It is clear that by using that specific word, you are implying knowledge that he disagreed with the terms of the agreement. The mere fact that neither of them signed it does not in and of itself indicate that either of them was in disagreement on its terms.

No.

The alternative here is a couple of people decided to pay some lawyers to draw up a contract for them, and when it was all done they met to review it, both read the thing, both felt this was a great idea and had no objections to the terms, and then said, "Well, as long as we're both already here, and we've got the thing, and we've already paid for it, we might as well not bother signing it.".

Have you read ANY of the numerous articles on this case? Read any of the posts containing quotes and citations? My guess is "no" because if you had, you would not have to create scenarios out of your imagination - you would know the factual sequence of events - and what you wrote ain't it.

 

[RavenSky]

1) I'm not saying that at all. There are clearly many, many, many instances where they are the case. This, however, is not one of them. They did not agree to anything afterwards and were in the midst of discussing changes to the agreement but never settled on one since the man required guarantees which could not be given. That means that the original contract in this case (and not as some kind of overarching statement concerning contract law in general) shoudl have remained in force.

2) The Third Party document was between them and the hospital. It's not relevant to the dispute, which concerns the contract they signed with each other. All the hospital's document did was say that in the event of a dispute, the hospital would defer to the ruling of the court. The hospital was correct in performing the procedure following the court's ruling, since they properly took no position beyond abiding by the legal ruling. It's the court which was at fault by making an improper ruling.

Tom, you have your facts very wrong.

The Third Party document was between them and the hospital. It's not relevant to the dispute, which concerns the contract they signed with each other.

There was no agreement they signed with each other. The only document they signed was the third party document between them and the hospital, which you say is not relevant to the dispute. There was an agreement between the two of them that was discussed with the attorney, and prepared by the attorney, but not signed by either of them.

They did not agree to anything afterwards and were in the midst of discussing changes to the agreement but never settled on one since the man required guarantees which could not be given.

Incorrect. They went to the attorney, were advised of their options, chose the "co-parenting" agreement which included the clause for Karla to have sole custody of the embryos. (The "sperm-donor" agreement would have given Karla sole custody of the embryos, too, btw). They did not sign this agreement. He did, however, eight days after meeting with the attorney, and four days after receiving the drafted contract, donate his sperm and authorized his sperm to fertilize all eight of her eggs knowing full well that those were the only eggs available and that she fully intended to implant them to have a biological child.

Then, a month later he broke up with her. He then spent the next 15 months dithering. It was after he broker up with her that he changed his mind and said he would not allow her to implant the embryos, then changed his mind and said he would but only if the hospital would destroy the records, then changed his mind and filed a lawsuit to block her from ever being allowed to implant the embryos.

The destruction of hospital records was never part of the original contract prepared by the attorney. Moreover, had he wanted anonymity he could have opted for the "sperm-donor" type of contract from the start.

 

[Rhea]

Moreover, had he wanted anonymity he could have opted for the "sperm-donor" type of contract from the start.

Ugh, the 20/20 of hindsight. Would have solved so much!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Tom, you have your facts very wrong.

The Third Party document was between them and the hospital. It's not relevant to the dispute, which concerns the contract they signed with each other.

There was no agreement they signed with each other. The only document they signed was the third party document between them and the hospital, which you say is not relevant to the dispute. There was an agreement between the two of them that was discussed with the attorney, and prepared by the attorney, but not signed by either of them.

What are you talking about? Where did you get that from? Here's from the link in the OP:

At the time, the couple also signed a document that stated 'no use can be made of these embryos without the consent of both partners'

Are you saying that this is a factual error on the part of the article and they never did this? Can you back that up or do you just have your facts very wrong? If they didn't, it would change my position on the matter, so I'd like to know.

There's a reason that the appeals court sent this case back explaining that "the case focuses on prior agreements rather than the interests of either party". The judge was supposed to rule on the agreement that they had and nothing else. That's the entire reason for having a contract.

Also, it doesn't matter how long he dithered. They had an existing agreement which required his consent. They had no agreement which required his consent for a given period.

 

[RavenSky]

Tom, you have your facts very wrong.

The Third Party document was between them and the hospital. It's not relevant to the dispute, which concerns the contract they signed with each other.

There was no agreement they signed with each other. The only document they signed was the third party document between them and the hospital, which you say is not relevant to the dispute. There was an agreement between the two of them that was discussed with the attorney, and prepared by the attorney, but not signed by either of them.

What are you talking about? Where did you get that from? Here's from the link in the OP:

At the time, the couple also signed a document that stated 'no use can be made of these embryos without the consent of both partners'

.

That is from the third party "Informed Consent" statement they signed for the hospital - the one you just said "is not relevant to the dispute."

Here is a more complete excerpt:

[n]o use can be made of these embryos without the consent of both partners (if applicable). *** In the event of divorce or dissolution of the marriage or partnership, NMFF [Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation’s Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility] will abide by the terms of the court decree or settlement agreement regarding the ownership and/or other rights to the embryos.

The law regarding [in vitro fertilization], embryo cryopreservation, subsequent embryo thaw and use, and parent-child status of any resulting child(ren) is, or may be, unsettled in the state in which either the patient, spouse, partner, or any current or future donor lives, or in Illinois, the state in which the NMFF Program is located. NMFF does not provide legal advice, and you should not rely on NMFF to give you any legal advice. You should consider consulting with a lawyer who is experienced in the areas of reproductive law and embryo cryopreservation as well as the disposition of embryos, including any questions or concerns about the present or future status of your embryos, your individual or joint access to them, your individual or joint parental status as to any resulting child, or about any other aspect of this consent and agreement.

and from the appellate decision again:

In this case, appellant maintains that the informed consent executed by the parties is a valid contract which prevents use of the pre-embryos without his consent. Specifically, he claims that the informed consent is an expression of both his and appellee’s intent that the pre-embryos cannot be used without both of their consents.

Appellee claims that appellant has misinterpreted the informed consent and argues that it is “simply the document by which the hospital sets forth its own policies regarding the
control of pre-embryos.” (Emphasis in original.) She also counters that appellant agreed to the subsequently written co-parent agreement where he promised that he would sign it, then performed his one critical obligation by providing sperm to create the pre-embryos

Bolding mine

They had NO signed agreement between just the two of them. The only document that was signed was the standard Informed Consent form from the hospital, yet that document clearly indicates that it is NOT meant to be the binding agreement between the two individuals.

As I have pointed out several times, in the lawsuit Jacob argues in 3 or 4 different ways that he is the one who should be allowed to break any agreements he had with Karla. It is only after those arguments that he adds that the *agreement* Jacob relied on and Karla should be held to was the fragment of a sentence in the hospital's Informed Consent statement: "[n]o use can be made of these embryos without the consent of both partners". He conveniently left of the rest of the sentence which included: "(if applicable)" and "In the event of divorce or dissolution of the marriage or partnership, NMFF [Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation’s Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility] will abide by the terms of the court decree or settlement agreement regarding the ownership and/or other rights to the embryos."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

OK, my bad. I mistook that for something else. Never mind.

There's a reason that the appeals' court reversed the ruling and sent the case back to the judge. It's because, as they said, it needed to be decided based on the agreement they signed and not based on the judge's opinion of who's interests outweigh the other's - especially when she did such a poor job of forming an opinion.

They signed an agreement requiring dual consent. He then donated the sperm to fertilize the eggs. A couple of days that was done, she then drew up a new written contract and he never agreed to the change. Two weeks after his not signing the new contract, she then went ahead and donated her eggs and got them fertilized. That's two whole weeks when he could have signed his name but didn't and yet she took no action to clarify the situation before deciding to still use his sperm instead of a donor. He had legitimate concerns which were not met, so he did not agree to a new contract.

Those embryos exist under the terms of the contract they have. If she didn't want that to be the case, she had ample opportunity to make another decision or have the original decision overridden and yet did nothing.

The appeals court is correct that the judge fucked up in her ruling and the terms of the contract which they have is clear.

 

[RavenSky]

OK, my bad. I mistook that for something else. Never mind.

And yet you go straight back to the same exact argument:

There's a reason that the appeals' court reversed the ruling and sent the case back to the judge. It's because, as they said, it needed to be decided based on the agreement they signed and not based on the judge's opinion of who's interests outweigh the other's - especially when she did such a poor job of forming an opinion.

Not quite. The appellate court did say the original judge should have heard the case to determine if there was a binding contract (instead of issuing a summary judgement in favor of Karla) but the also said that the original judge did an excellent job. I've quoted and cited the particulars previously, so I'm not going to do it again here.

They signed an agreement requiring dual consent.

No they didn't. They signed an informed consent statement for the hospital that stated the hospital would do nothing without mutual consent or a court-order.

He then donated the sperm to fertilize the eggs. A couple of days that was done, she then drew up a new written contract and he never agreed to the change.

Wrong again. The very same day they signed the informed consent statement for the hospital, they met with the hospital's attorney who told them they had a choice between a co-parenting agreement or a sperm-donor agreement. Four days later, the attorney sent them the co-parenting agreement per their instructions. Four days after that, Jacob donated his sperm and explicitly authorized his sperm to fertilize all eight of Karla's eggs.

One month after that, Jacob broke up with Karla.

Two weeks after his not signing the new contract, she then went ahead and donated her eggs and got them fertilized. That's two whole weeks when he could have signed his name but didn't and yet she took no action to clarify the situation before deciding to still use his sperm instead of a donor. He had legitimate concerns which were not met, so he did not agree to a new contract.

Where the fuck are you getting your version of events as they do not resemble anything I've found in any of the articles that I have posted and cited.

Kindly quote and cite where you are getting your version of events, because I am starting to think you are just yanking my ponytail for the fun of it.

 

[Jokodo]

ill in a relationship until some time after the embryos were created and obviously were in communication with one another.

She says he told her he would sign the contract.

He says he never said that. They both have a vested interest in their version of what happened. It is also possible that she reasonably understood him to promise to sign it and that he never intended such a promise.

Yes, these sorts of he-said she-said situations are difficult to suss out.

Unless there's a contract or something, I mean.

A contract which, at least according to one party, has been superseded by more recent verbal agreements.

Verbal agreements are binding, you know that?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Where the fuck are you getting your version of events as they do not resemble anything I've found in any of the articles that I have posted and cited.

Kindly quote and cite where you are getting your version of events, because I am starting to think you are just yanking my ponytail for the fun of it.

http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Archives/2013/10/04/appeal-10-4-13.aspx

She and Szafranski agreed to attempt in vitro fertilization to conceive a child before the treatment began. Szafranski donated sperm samples on March 25, and both parties signed an agreement stating that, among other things, “[n]o use can be made of these embryos without the consent of both partners (if applicable).”

Another agreement between the two was drawn up days later with language stating that Dunston would have sole control of the eggs and pre-embryos in case the two split up, and that Szafranski “agrees to undertake all legal, custodial, and other obligations to the [c]hild regardless of any change of circumstance between the [p]arties.” The second contract was never signed.

Szafranski deposited sperm and Dunston donated eggs on April 6, and all of them were fertilized before the two ended their relationship in May.

That's the timeline of when things happened. The new agreement was after his donation and she had plenty of time to get his agreement before using his sperm to fertilize her eggs and yet chose not to do so.

That's what makes the woman's argument so invalid. He donated his sperm under the first contract and then wouldn't sign the second contract. She says he agreed to it and he disputes that and says that he never did. When that is the case, you can't use the potential verbal agreement to override the written agreement. That's the entire reason to have written agreements as opposed to simply basing law on the biased and self-serving statements of one opposing party.

The judge was way out of line to base her ruling on anything other than the contracts and that's why her decision was reversed. It should be based solely on the contracts and the verbal agreement in this case isn't a strong enough one to override their written one. If it was as strongly agreed to as she says it was, then we'd have a second written agreement as she wanted as opposed to one that he wouldn't sign.

 

[Toni]

http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Archives/2013/10/04/appeal-10-4-13.aspx

She and Szafranski agreed to attempt in vitro fertilization to conceive a child before the treatment began. Szafranski donated sperm samples on March 25, and both parties signed an agreement stating that, among other things, “[n]o use can be made of these embryos without the consent of both partners (if applicable).”

Another agreement between the two was drawn up days later with language stating that Dunston would have sole control of the eggs and pre-embryos in case the two split up, and that Szafranski “agrees to undertake all legal, custodial, and other obligations to the [c]hild regardless of any change of circumstance between the [p]arties.” The second contract was never signed.

Szafranski deposited sperm and Dunston donated eggs on April 6, and all of them were fertilized before the two ended their relationship in May.

That's the timeline of when things happened. The new agreement was after his donation and she had plenty of time to get his agreement before using his sperm to fertilize her eggs and yet chose not to do so.

That's what makes the woman's argument so invalid. He donated his sperm under the first contract and then wouldn't sign the second contract. She says he agreed to it and he disputes that and says that he never did. When that is the case, you can't use the potential verbal agreement to override the written agreement. That's the entire reason to have written agreements as opposed to simply basing law on the biased and self-serving statements of one opposing party.

The judge was way out of line to base her ruling on anything other than the contracts and that's why her decision was reversed. It should be based solely on the contracts and the verbal agreement in this case isn't a strong enough one to override their written one. If it was as strongly agreed to as she says it was, then we'd have a second written agreement as she wanted as opposed to one that he wouldn't sign.

From your link:

She and Szafranski agreed to attempt in vitro fertilization to conceive a child before the treatment began. Szafranski donated sperm samples on March 25, and both parties signed an agreement stating that, among other things, “[n]o use can be made of these embryos without the consent of both partners (if applicable).”

Which sounds exactly like the agreement drawn up by the hospital (from Raven's post upthread) italicized to help distinguish between which quote is yours and which is hers:

[QUOTE]Here is a more complete excerpt:
[n]o use can be made of these embryos without the consent of both partners (if applicable). *** In the event of divorce or dissolution of the marriage or partnership, NMFF [Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation’s Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility] will abide by the terms of the court decree or settlement agreement regarding the ownership and/or other rights to the embryos.
The law regarding [in vitro fertilization], embryo cryopreservation, subsequent embryo thaw and use, and parent-child status of any resulting child(ren) is, or may be, unsettled in the state in which either the patient, spouse, partner, or any current or future donor lives, or in Illinois, the state in which the NMFF Program is located. NMFF does not provide legal advice, and you should not rely on NMFF to give you any legal advice. You should consider consulting with a lawyer who is experienced in the areas of reproductive law and embryo cryopreservation as well as the disposition of embryos, including any questions or concerns about the present or future status of your embryos, your individual or joint access to them, your individual or joint parental status as to any resulting child, or about any other aspect of this consent and agreement.
and from the appellate decision again:

And then this from your post:

Another agreement between the two was drawn up days later with language stating that Dunston would have sole control of the eggs and pre-embryos in case the two split up, and that Szafranski “agrees to undertake all legal, custodial, and other obligations to the [c]hild regardless of any change of circumstance between the [p]arties.” The second contract was never signed.

This is the co-parenting agreement Raven cited before, one that they requested and did not sign--for whatever reasons we are not privy to. Further there were texts between them in which he said he wanted to help her have a baby which is quite different than stating that he wanted to help her create embryos.

As for your notion that she had 'plenty of time' to find another donor: Well, that depends on your definition of 'plenty of time.' If he had been honest about his misgivings (assuming he had misgivings at the time and they didn't just materialize after they broke up), she could have done. But the time frame was short. Diagnosis: March. Sperm donation March 25. Egg retrieval and fertilization: April 9. During those few weeks between diagnosis and creation of the embryos, she had to make many decision, undergo many medical tests and evaluations and procedures.

He would have also been undergoing some testing but far less invasive and far less time consuming.

I am assuming they both also continued to work their jobs.

Here's a link to what to expect if you are undergoing IVF: http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/features/what-to-expect-during-ivf

And here's a link to the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_donation



Note: it is a process that takes at least 2 weeks and depending on where she was in her menstrual cycle, it might have been delayed so that the timing of the drugs used to stimulate the folicles to release as many eggs as possible.

All the while dealing with the stress of knowing she had cancer, knowing she was taking a risk with her own life by delaying the start of chemo until after eggs were retrieved.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Note: it is a process that takes at least 2 weeks and depending on where she was in her menstrual cycle, it might have been delayed so that the timing of the drugs used to stimulate the folicles to release as many eggs as possible.

All the while dealing with the stress of knowing she had cancer, knowing she was taking a risk with her own life by delaying the start of chemo until after eggs were retrieved.

Which is why she should have hired a lawyer to handle the drawing up of the contracts because he could take care of all that stuff while she focused on her health. Oh wait, she did exactly that. The lawyer couldn't get the man to agree to the new contract.

 

[The Paul]

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the court was right or wrong. What I know is that the situation is not as black and white as you're trying to make it look, and pretending that there was obviously one and only one valid contract which was ignored for no good reason is dishonest and doesn't help your argument. Oral agreements or unsigned contracts can be legally binding under specific circumstances, and can supercede a mutually signed written contract, as even your own analogy shows.

No, it is actually fairly black and white. They had a signed contract. They were negotiating a change to that contract but couldn't come to an agreement about the terms. That means that the original contract remains in force and there is not a new contract.

It isn't black and white. There is a signed agreement, an unsigned agreement that one claims he said he would sign and the other denies. Added are multiple verbal agreements and the fact that he performed the most essential part of all agreements by donating sperm.

Further, if he did not intend to actually allow the implantation of the embryos, he committed fraud and any signed contract would be void.

You may disagree as much as you like but so far, two courts have agreed with Dunston's position.

And the whole crux of the matter rests upon the reason that the second agreement was unsigned. That is because he had conditions for his signing of it and those conditions were not met. Until those conditions are met, the unsigned agreement should not ever override the signed agreement.

...and if one party's word that the other party told them they don't have to abide by the contract is good enough to waive the contract then none of that counts for anything.

In the case of technology assisted reproduction such as in vitro, surrogacy, etc., society and the law has not settled on how to deal with some very new and different situations.

It's a lousy situation. One person will lose something s/he values very highly.

...and there's a signed agreement as to who that person should be.

Since you are unwilling to move off of that same position, all evidence and links providing you with information AND court rulings contrary to your position, there is no reason to continue this exchange.

Yes, well, you haven't actually provided me with any links contradicting anything I've said. That hasn't escaped my notice.

When people make those sorts of absurd declarations I'm never sure if they think I'll become confused as to conversations I took part in only a few days or hours ago, or if they're just sort of performing for the audience. So just in case it's the former, it's not working, just fyi.

Anyway, here's something I really should have clarified before now:

Which brings up a question: How does he *know* that he does not already have a biological child out there somewhere? What is so special about these embryos? That particular sperm?

Do you possess some particular knowledge regarding Jacob Szafranski indicating it should be especially difficult for him to know whether or not he currently has any children?

 

[The Paul]

Kindly provide evidence that he "refused" to sign it. It is clear that by using that specific word, you are implying knowledge that he disagreed with the terms of the agreement. The mere fact that neither of them signed it does not in and of itself indicate that either of them was in disagreement on its terms.

No.

The alternative here is a couple of people decided to pay some lawyers to draw up a contract for them, and when it was all done they met to review it, both read the thing, both felt this was a great idea and had no objections to the terms, and then said, "Well, as long as we're both already here, and we've got the thing, and we've already paid for it, we might as well not bother signing it.".

Have you read ANY of the numerous articles on this case? Read any of the posts containing quotes and citations? My guess is "no" because if you had, you would not have to create scenarios out of your imagination - you would know the factual sequence of events - and what you wrote ain't it.

Well you've done a great deal of research into the matter then? Because it's the timeline and blank spots you presented to me that require this kind of absurdity in order to support your interpretation.

This really is very simple. If I present you with a contract and say to you "Please sign this contract" and the contract doesn't end up getting signed, we can probably describe your actions as refusing to sign the contract. Certain special scenarios might exist, such as you were somehow physically prevent from signing it, but you don't need to justify why you didn't sign it or what you didn't like about it. I asked you to sign it and then you didn't sign it. That is refusing to sign it.

You're not arguing by throwing around links or information. You're arguing by pretending you don't understand this very simple concept.

 

[The Paul]

ill in a relationship until some time after the embryos were created and obviously were in communication with one another.

She says he told her he would sign the contract.

He says he never said that. They both have a vested interest in their version of what happened. It is also possible that she reasonably understood him to promise to sign it and that he never intended such a promise.

Yes, these sorts of he-said she-said situations are difficult to suss out.

Unless there's a contract or something, I mean.

A contract which, at least according to one party, has been superseded by more recent verbal agreements.

Verbal agreements are binding, you know that?

Well, they're binding if you can somehow document who said what, which can be tricky.

Which is why people sometimes write this kind of thing down, formalize things, put some signatures on there, etc. You know, create a clear record of who agreed to what.

 

[Toni]

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the court was right or wrong. What I know is that the situation is not as black and white as you're trying to make it look, and pretending that there was obviously one and only one valid contract which was ignored for no good reason is dishonest and doesn't help your argument. Oral agreements or unsigned contracts can be legally binding under specific circumstances, and can supercede a mutually signed written contract, as even your own analogy shows.

No, it is actually fairly black and white. They had a signed contract. They were negotiating a change to that contract but couldn't come to an agreement about the terms. That means that the original contract remains in force and there is not a new contract.

It isn't black and white. There is a signed agreement, an unsigned agreement that one claims he said he would sign and the other denies. Added are multiple verbal agreements and the fact that he performed the most essential part of all agreements by donating sperm.

Further, if he did not intend to actually allow the implantation of the embryos, he committed fraud and any signed contract would be void.

You may disagree as much as you like but so far, two courts have agreed with Dunston's position.

And the whole crux of the matter rests upon the reason that the second agreement was unsigned. That is because he had conditions for his signing of it and those conditions were not met. Until those conditions are met, the unsigned agreement should not ever override the signed agreement.

...and if one party's word that the other party told them they don't have to abide by the contract is good enough to waive the contract then none of that counts for anything.

In the case of technology assisted reproduction such as in vitro, surrogacy, etc., society and the law has not settled on how to deal with some very new and different situations.

It's a lousy situation. One person will lose something s/he values very highly.

...and there's a signed agreement as to who that person should be.

Since you are unwilling to move off of that same position, all evidence and links providing you with information AND court rulings contrary to your position, there is no reason to continue this exchange.

Yes, well, you haven't actually provided me with any links contradicting anything I've said. That hasn't escaped my notice.

When people make those sorts of absurd declarations I'm never sure if they think I'll become confused as to conversations I took part in only a few days or hours ago, or if they're just sort of performing for the audience. So just in case it's the former, it's not working, just fyi.

Anyway, here's something I really should have clarified before now:

Which brings up a question: How does he *know* that he does not already have a biological child out there somewhere? What is so special about these embryos? That particular sperm?

Do you possess some particular knowledge regarding Jacob Szafranski indicating it should be especially difficult for him to know whether or not he currently has any children?

Neither of them signed the contract. We don't know why. Perhaps they were uncertain or perhaps THEY WERE VERY BUSY, VERY STRESSED OUT AND RELIED ON WHAT THE OTHER WAS TELLING THEM. You know: verbal contract. Plus the texts in which he said he wanted to help her have a baby. That sort of thing. This 'contract' you are so certain that they signed was between them and the hospital, not between one another. You cannot possibly be naive enough to believe that the lawyer was calling up Jacob and trying to convince him to sign. If Jacob did have doubts before the donation as he now claims, he kept those doubts to himself.


I have no idea of anything about Jacob Szafranski's sex life or whether or not he has fathered other children. I was just wondering if HE knew for certain.

I am sorry if you haven't found any of the links I or others have provided to be useful. I'm not going to repeat my own links or the links of others. If you actually care to understand the issues, perhaps you could read the links yourself or do what I did and perform google searches.

 

[Toni]

ill in a relationship until some time after the embryos were created and obviously were in communication with one another.

She says he told her he would sign the contract.

He says he never said that. They both have a vested interest in their version of what happened. It is also possible that she reasonably understood him to promise to sign it and that he never intended such a promise.

Yes, these sorts of he-said she-said situations are difficult to suss out.

Unless there's a contract or something, I mean.

A contract which, at least according to one party, has been superseded by more recent verbal agreements.

Verbal agreements are binding, you know that?

Well, they're binding if you can somehow document who said what, which can be tricky.

Which is why people sometimes write this kind of thing down, formalize things, put some signatures on there, etc. You know, create a clear record of who agreed to what.

People also send each other texts. Which he did. Saying he wanted to help her have a baby. Texts are commonly admitted as evidence in courts of law.

- - - Updated - - -

Note: it is a process that takes at least 2 weeks and depending on where she was in her menstrual cycle, it might have been delayed so that the timing of the drugs used to stimulate the folicles to release as many eggs as possible.

All the while dealing with the stress of knowing she had cancer, knowing she was taking a risk with her own life by delaying the start of chemo until after eggs were retrieved.

Which is why she should have hired a lawyer to handle the drawing up of the contracts because he could take care of all that stuff while she focused on her health. Oh wait, she did exactly that. The lawyer couldn't get the man to agree to the new contract.

Neither of them signed the contract. We don't know why. Perhaps they were uncertain or perhaps THEY WERE VERY BUSY, VERY STRESSED OUT AND RELIED ON WHAT THE OTHER WAS TELLING THEM. You know: verbal contract. Plus the texts in which he said he wanted to help her have a baby. That sort of thing. This 'contract' you are so certain that they signed was between them and the hospital, not between one another. You cannot possibly be naive enough to believe that the lawyer was calling up Jacob and trying to convince him to sign. If Jacob did have doubts before the donation as he now claims, he kept those doubts to himself.