Jessica Mederson and Josh Gilliland discuss the contract issues in Firefly.
No part of this discuss should be considered legal advice.
Jessica Mederson and Josh Gilliland discuss the contract issues in Firefly.
No part of this discuss should be considered legal advice.
Firefly was wickedly creative, well-written and had fantastic humor. Spaceships and wardrobe that ranged from Western to Steampunk to Chinese aside, Firefly presented excellent Contract formation issues.
Contract formation consists of 1) Offer; 2) Acceptance; 3) Consideration; and 4) Performance.
In the world of Firefly, it was often 1) Offer 2) Acceptance 3) Gunfight (also known as breach). Let’s review three episodes to examine these contract issues.
Consideration in Contract Law involves something of “value” being given up by a promissor to a promisee in exchange for something of value given by a promisee to a promissor (Nice summary in Wikipedia). In Shindig, the consideration for earning Warrick Harrow’s cattle shipment job was surviving a sword fight with one of Inara’s clients (it also could be a condition precedent, because Mal did have to survive the fight).
Since the old idea that consideration can be a peppercorn, a sword fight does not seem too crazy in a future with space cowboys fighting an oppressive regime.
The Train Job was the second episode in the series. Malcolm Reynolds formed an oral contract with a crime boss named Adelei Niska to steal medical supplies from a train. Niska made a payment for the work to be performed, which involves extracting cargo from a fast-moving train with Alliance soldiers onboard.
The heist was a success, with the exception the Captain and Zoe were stuck on the train and ultimately needed to be “rescued” by Inara after being detained in town.
However, once Mal and Zoe reached the destination of the cargo, they learned the medicine was vital for the survival of a mining town where everyone was suffering from the effects of mining.
Mal’s following actions are best described as contract rescission, which is the unwinding of an agreement. Mal decided to return the stolen medicine to the town and the money back to Niska. Granted, since this was an action show, there was a gunfight and someone sucked through a jet intake before Niska’s men accepted the rescission (non-traditional contract remedies were later sought by Niska in War Stories).
The contract issues in Out of Gas focused on a salvage ship that found the crippled Serenity with only Mal onboard.
Serenity was heavily damaged from an engine room fire and needed a new compression coil.
The salvage captain boarded Serenity and shot Mal after seeing Mal was telling the truth about Serenity’s damage (this was after Mal offered anything of value in the ship’s hold).
The actions up until the shooting showed the parties went beyond offer and acceptance to performance, because the salvage captain boarded Serenity with the compression coil in hand.
Given the fact payment had not been determined, there was an uncertain term to the contract. However, there was sufficient evidence to show a contract had been formed based upon the conduct of the parties (boarding Serenity with the part Mal requested from the salvage captain).
After being shot, Mal armed himself with the gun from the “Mule” and ordered the captain and crew off his ship. While there was no payment made for the compression coil, the salvage captain breached his agreement when he shot Mal. Keeping the compression coil would have been the proper damage recovery (sure, there is a separate cause of action for shooting someone).
The remedy for a breach of contract is either money damages or equitable remedies. Gunfights in the series aside, Out of Gas focused more on the equitable remedy of specific performance. In the instance of The Train Job, returning Niska’s money was designed to put him in the same place as he was before the contract with Malcolm Renyolds.
So let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job and then I get paid.
Captain Malcolm Reynolds
Firefly essentially was about engaging in contract work for payment. Each episode has different themes on issues of formation, breach or remedies. While the show was certainly not a transactional space adventure with cowboys, the contract issues are very prevalent.
Doctor Who. From the first episode on November 23, 1963 to present date, it is one of the best science fiction series of all time (despite first airing the day after the Kennedy assassination).
The 11th Doctor, played by Matt Smith, has had the great fortune of excellent storytelling and acting. More importantly, Smith has helped with a significant bow tie Renascence.
Who Doesn’t Love Dinosaurs & Spaceships?
The episode Dinosaurs on a Spaceship also provides an opportunity to discuss issues in criminal law.
On a simple matter of principle, many geeks have dreamed of saying “dinosaurs” and “spaceship” in the same sentence for decades.
The legal issues involve the Doctor not just leaving the villain die, but outright causing his death. In short, the Doctor left a tracking device for incoming missiles on the villain’s spaceship to blow up the villain’s ship.
What did the bad guy do to deserve such a fate?
First, the villain’s name was Solomon. He came across a “Space Ark” that advanced reptiles (the Silurians or homo reptilia) used to escape Earth 65 million years ago before the mass extinction event killed off nearly all life on Earth (which in Dr. Who was caused by Cyberman controlled space freighter crashing into Earth, killing the 5th Doctor’s companion Adric in Earthshock). The Ark contained many species of dinosaurs and Silurians in suspended animation.
Recognizing the profit he could make from the dinosaurs, Solomon had his two robots wake up a limited number of Silurians at a time and then execute them by ejecting them into space.
The two words that best describe Solomon are “greed” and “cruelty.”
In the penultimate face-off with the Doctor, Solomon had one of his robots kill a triceratops to prove his intentions to escape with Queen Nefertiti (longer story on how she was there). There is a very sweet scene with the Doctor gently comforting the dying creature as it closes its eyes for the last time.
Brutally gunning down a triceratops is the moral equivalent of murdering a golden retriever. Whoever pulls the trigger only makes enemies in either case.
Juris Doctor Who
From a legal perspective, was the Doctor justified in 1) leaving a tracking device on Solomon’s spaceship and 2) leaving Solomon to die?
The tracking device would have been justified under the “Necessity Defense.” The “Necessity Defense” under Common Law generally requires the following:
(1) the defendant acted to avoid a significant risk of harm;
(2) no adequate lawful means could have been used to escape the harm; and
(3) the harm avoided was greater than that caused by breaking the law.
Additionally, California (and other states) allow the use of force under the following circumstances:
Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of oneself, or of a wife, husband, child, parent, or other relative, or member of one’s family, or of a ward, servant, master, or guest.
Cal Civ Code § 50
Applying Common Law and the California Civil Code, we can establish the following:
The Doctor acted to avoid the “Space Ark” from being destroyed by missiles by placing the tracking device on Solomon’s ship. The alternative was for everyone, including the dinosaurs, to be destroyed.
There was no other lawful means to escape the incoming missiles. While the TARDIS is bigger on the inside, fitting nearly 50 species of dinosaurs onboard in a matter of minutes would not be possible.
Placing the tracking device on Solomon’s ship avoided the greater harm of the Ark with everyone onboard from being killed.
The trickier issue is leaving Solomon to die. Solomon had murdered hundreds, if not thousands, of Silurians in cold blood. He has also threatened the Doctor and his traveling companions, including having one shot by a robot and the attempted kidnapping of another. Looking at California’s law permitting a person to protect themselves or a “guest” from wrongful injury with any necessary force, would the law allow leaving Solomon to die?
Given the timing of the incoming missiles and the danger Solomon had posed, the answer is likely yes. However, there is grey area, since Solomon was defeated and knocked to the deck when the Doctor transported off Solomon’s ship to use it as a decoy.
Furthermore, while there is no duty to rescue, there is an exception for when a person creates a hazardous situation.
Missiles being directed to Solomon’s ship thanks to a tracking device likely would count in the world of torts, but given the necessity of the situation (could the Doctor carry the evil man who liked to murder Silurians in under 5 seconds?), leaving him was justified.
However, if Solomon could be saved, wouldn’t it be better to convict him for his crimes instead of an instant execution?
Regardless of the legal issues presented, it highlights two important lessons for villains:
1) Never fight a man in a bow tie;
2) Never kill a triceratops and think you will escape.
Joshua Gilliland (@bowtielaw) and Jessica Mederson (@eDiscMatters) review the top legal issues from Star Trek, The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager, and Enterprise.
Explanation of the Marital Privilege and requirements for an effective
privilege log. Case examples include Gooden v. Ryan’s Rest. Group,
Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74944, 7-9 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 12, 2006) and
United States v. Yim, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5999 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 19,
2012).
(No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.)
Star Trek’s impact on our culture as an allegory of what it means to be human cannot be understated.
The Star Trek The Next Generation episode The Measure of the Man is perhaps one of the best Trek stories of defining what it is to be alive and free.
Another that is easily overlooked is the Star Trek Voyager episode Author, Author, where the holographic Doctor’s holobook highlights the plight of Mark 1 Emergency Medical Holographs, who are being used for mining work.
The legal twist to the story is the Doctor is not found to be a legal person at the end, but did have control over his creative work.
A Story on Rights
The Measure of a Man focuses on Lt. Commander Data and the attempt by Commander Bruce Maddox to take Data apart to learn how Data worked.
Maddox’s goal was simple: there are many dangerous jobs in space travel. Every star ship having a Data to do the dangerous work would make the universe a safer place for real living lifeforms.
Adding insult to injury, Maddox only referred to Data as “it.” Moreover, Maddox shows no respect for Data, with entering Data’s quarters without permission. Further endearing himself to no one, Maddox proclaimed he was “Sick to death to hear of rights” when Captain Picard stood up for Data’s rights and personal freedom.
It is no surprise Data says “No” to Maddox’s “research,” because Maddox’s research lacked specifics and the probability of Data surviving it.
Since Maddox spent a fair amount of timing plotting to experiment on Data, he was prepared with transfer orders for Data.
Not wanting to be taken apart by someone who did not know what he was doing, Data decides to resign from Starfleet.
Small problem: there is the legal argument Data is a machine, thus Starfleet property, and could not simply resign.
Going Legal Like No Had Before
Captain Picard goes to the local JAG officer, Captain Phillipa Louvois for help in fighting the transfer order (it is interesting to note that a lawyer was named after François Michel Le Tellier Louvois, the minister of war for King Louis XIV).
The two Captains have a less then stellar history, as Louvois prosecuted the court martial against Captain Picard for the loss of the USS Stargazer.
To make this complicated, Louvois and Picard apparently had a romantic relationship (that possibly overlapped with the court martial).
This could be problematic because 1) One would think a lawyer would know better then to prosecute someone the attorney had a relationship with (apparently there are no ethical rules on conflict of interests in the 24th Century) and 2) If you zealously try to destroy someone’s career, they generally don’t want to date you afterwards.
There is no Hallmark Card or Holodeck Program, for “I am sorry I tried destroying your life without mercy. It was purely professional. Please take me back.”
The Taylor Swift song “We are never getting back together” would be very fitting in such situations.
And yet, Picard goes to Louvois for help, because she is the only one who can help him.
The O’Connor Effect
With the complex romantic subplot aside, Star Trek’s treatment of women in the practice of law is very admirable. The 1967 Original Series episode Court Martial depicted Lt. Areel Shaw as a strong prosecutor who argued her case against Captain Kirk with force and courtroom command. That was filmed at a time when only three percent of attorneys in the United States were women.
In The Measure of A Man, Phillipa Louvois is of equal rank as Picard, and following the tradition of Lt. Areel Shaw, Louvois prosecuted her former boyfriend. Moreover, Louvois is the officer-in-charge of the JAG department of her sector.
Furthermore, Louvois does not act as the prosecutor in the case, but the Judge (one could argue the local Admiral technically should have heard the case, but the story is better showcasing the advancement of women in the practice of law with Louvois as the judge).
The Measure of A Man aired in 1989. In the 22 years that followed Court Martial, Sandra Day O’Connor became the first women Supreme Court Justice, plus an increase of women going to law school and entering the practice of law. While there are many significant challenges for women attorneys today, The Measure of a Man continued the tradition of showing strong women in the practice of law as a very important subtext.
Who Has Rights?
Captain Picard was given the duty of defending Lt. Commander Data from being a piece of property. Commander Riker was given one of the worst duties ever with having to prosecute a case that his friend essentially did not have any rights as a living being. If Riker had not taken the case, Louvois would have summarily ruled for Maddox.
Once again, Star Trek made a very pointed reminder of egregious wrongs in the past. The argument Riker had to make was in a United States Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice Roger Taney in 1857. The 200 page opinion is a nightmarish rejection of the Declaration of Independence:
The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as salves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution.
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 403 (U.S. 1857)
The horror of the Dred Scott opinion only becomes more terrifying with each page. Chief Justice Taney stated the following on the founding of the United States:
It then proceeds to say: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appeared, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.
Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men — high in literary acquirements — high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 410 (U.S. 1857)
A Supreme Court opinion holding the United States was a country of slave owners, and no State or the Federal Government could eliminate slavery in the name of “property” should make every American stand up and say “No.”
And many Americans did more then simply say “No” that between 1857 to 1865.
It is no question that this abomination of a Supreme Court opinion helped enable the new Republican Party to elect Abraham Lincoln as President in 1860. Historically speaking, there was no turning back from the Civil War after Dred Scott.
Better Angels of Our Nature
Commander Riker’s arguments that Data lacked rights was extremely damaging (It is worth noting the procedures for swearing in a witness are the same as Court Martial).
It takes a reflective Picard visiting with Guinan to realize what was really at stake: Maddox wanted disposable people, whose welfare you did not have to consider.
Captain Picard’s return to the courtroom was a two step process of a direct examination of Data and examining Maddox as a hostile witness.
The issue of whether Data had rights turned on whether he was sentient. Maddox testified that to be sentient one had to have 1) Intelligence; 2) self-awareness; and 3) consciousness.
Maddox’s examination showed the Data possessed the first and second requirements for sentience.The third was not answered verbally, but only an uncomfortable stare by Commander Maddox.
Picard’s questions turned into a closing argument, focusing in on Maddox’s goal to construct more “Datas.” The final rhetorical question is if thousands of Datas are constructed, isn’t that a race?
In the end, the trial was not about “property,” but of servitude and slavery.
Captain Louvois recognized the long term impact of the issue (or the fear of being in the historical company of Roger Taney), found for Data.
Maddox himself is also redeemed, realizing that Data had the right to determine his own fate. Since Maddox only saw Data as a machine, he originally did not see the bigger moral issue at stake. Maddox changed his position and canceled Data’s transfer orders.
Captain Picard also made a significant showing of forgiveness to Captain Louvois with an invitation to dinner after the trial.
A Note on Freedom
American history is sadly full of examples where freedom has been cruelly suppressed. In 1802, Postmaster General Gideon Granger wrote a confidential letter to Senator James Jackson (Georgia), chairman of the Committee on the Posts. Granger argued against allowing African Americans to become post riders delivering the mail, because it would require the riders knew how to read and interact with people. Granger stated the “danger” as follows:
They will learn that a man’s rights do not depend on his color.
Bruce Levine, Half Slave and Half Free: The Roots of Civil War, pp 12-13, The Noonday Press, 1992.
American history also has the brilliant examples of what makes the United States a shining city on a hill, because “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” is not empty rhetoric. The silent monuments at Gettysburg and Pointe Du Hoc say more then any speech can on what Americans have done for freedom.
And those ideals of freedom have been very strongly presented in Star Trek.
Star Trek has for 46 years told stories of racial and gender equality. The stories translate the suppression of “artificial life rights” as an allegory for human rights. More importantly, Star Trek is an optimistic vision of how the world could be, and not how the world was in the past.
Jessica Mederson & Josh Gilliland interview Amber Schroader, CEO of Paraben Corporation, on the Paraben Forensic Innovation Conference, to be held in Park City, UT, November 3 to 6, 2012.
Both Josh & Jessica will be presenting at PFIC, including a Legal Geek panel!