I think he’s full of shit, and he’s just like all the other free loading people who use lawsuits to “get rich quick”, even though they don’t deserve a penny.

Judy….. oh Judy!

@WillWorkForChocolate Not even some money?? Allegedly he didn’t get his full hour lap dance..shouldn’t he get something for that?? ;)

Hell no. If you pay money for sex, you have to be prepared for the fact that you may not be fully satisfied. You pay the money, you take the risk. If that risk isn’t acceptable, then get a real relationship where you don’t have to pay for booty.

You’re not gonna start complaining about the other night, are you? Because I told you straight up I didn’t have time for a full hour! :P

Man that musta been a bad lay indeed!

He cannot sue over the sex act (since an illegal contract is null and void) and he cannot sue over almost getting arrested (since he’s the one who went to the police). As far as the putative mental condition goes, I’d need more details. The most it seems he can hope for is the base fee for the woman’s legitimate services. If all of the proceeds from the lap dance technically count as tips, however, then he isn’t entitled to anything.

Buyer beware.
He should have got references. XD

I hope he got a STD.

Thrown out of court.

Further, I’d hit him with costs for filing such a frivolous suit. What idiot of an attorney represented him? Due for a penalty as well.

@aprilsimnel I think the story said he filed this suit on his own

The dude must have mental problems. His thinking is even more fucked up than mine is!

According to your linked article, prostitution is illegal in LV, so there’s no legal contract, so I would award him nothing.

However, by the same standard, he had no obligation to pay.

@Cruiser – Oh. Well. Court costs, definitely.

Well, there’s no doubt that he has seriously impaired mental faculties.

The case should be dismissed, thrown out, tossed, etc.

It’s obvious the man suffers from premature ejaculation and is blaming it on the hooker.

Without any witnesses, the case should be dismissed.
And the Plaintiff should be liable for all court cost.
Throw the book at em’ Dano! I know that’s not part of the court proceeding’s. I just wanted to say that:D

GQ. and fun!

He should stop screwing around and take matters into his own hands, since he is clearly a jerkoff.

@ratboy – HA!

After that last comment by @ratboy and the ensuing histrionics, can we get some order in the court?

@ratboy : One of the best answers ever.

ORDER IN THE COURT!! The jury shall strike from the record @hawaii_jake‘S outburst and @ratboy‘s comments shall remain a matter of record!! Prosecution shall call the next witness!! ;)

the guy got head, what’s he complaining about?

Only in America

What @WillWorkForChocolate said. As for his mental anguish? sheesh….. let the sad sorry little man go back to his stack of magazines for company.

@ratboy LOL LOL great answer.

I think he’s an idiot and should have been arrested in the first place.

“Almost got arrested?”

I believe a prostitute’s job is done once the man comes, so why would she stick around if he came already? For a chat?

@jca Many men are paying for companionship as much as sex. And since rates are often set as a function of both time and sex acts to be performed, it is not entirely unreasonable to expect to get exactly what was paid for. It is, however, unreasonable to initiate litigation over the matter.

Here’s what’s funny for me…this isn’t as frivilous as it may seem, potentially. It is kind of stupid…but there are some issues…

First, intoxication is a defense to some specific intent crimes in some jurisdictions. It would depend on some choice of law principles, but I’m pretty sure that it would depend on how it’s treated in Nevada. So, it’s not objectively ridiculous for him to claim that he had hired a stripper, got wasted, and got the extra offer that he wasn’t clear on in his head, so he couldn’t be intentionally paying for the specific sexual services.

Note – I’m only arguing that this isn’t an immediately frivilous argument.

Second, if that’s what happened, then calling the police and being threatened with arrest after trying to deal with the agency when you’re young, poor, and got hustled when you were too drunk to really make a good decision about what was going on…well, that’s traumatizing. That warrants seeking an increased monetary claim in federal court.

Third, if that’s what happened, then the kid is kind of doing a public service – there are probably a lot of these services that prey on stupid kids like this, the employees knowing the legal grey areas and implications better than the kids they’re ripping off. Complaining to the BBB doesn’t shut down that operation – going through the legal system does.

So, I would say based on what we have, dismissal or summary judgment is improper – we need to go further with fact finding.

@iamthemob I have no problem with the theoretical element of your comment, but it’s important to note that it’s not what the kid is claiming happened. He doesn’t deny that he intentionally paid for the sex act. His claim is that the contract wasn’t legally binding due to his intoxication and that he therefore deserves his money back. Of course, the contract isn’t legally binding in the first place: it was an illegal contract, after all. But it does not follow from this that he deserves his money back. If he can prove he was duped into paying for sex accidentally, sure. Even he’s not saying that, though.

@SavoirFaire

This is the difference between the legal and general definition of intent. The intoxication defense isn’t about whether you really did or did not want to commit the crime, or even get that it was a crime – it’s about whether because you were drunk it’s understandable that you were just to stupid to understand the consequences of that.

It’s why it’s only about specific intent crimes. These are crimes that require you desire a particular result to occur. General intent crimes, like assault or battery, don’t really intend a particular result, just a particular act. “I want to take a swing at this guy” is general intent. “I am going to shoot and kill this guy” is specific.

So, it’s really putting forward a defense against a counter-claim from the other side. The problem is the contract is, in theory, valid on its face if the surface exchange was for the illicit, but legal, behavior (lapdance). If that’s the case, the business has a duty to ensure that the person they’re contracting with is of age and can otherwise consent. So, if underneath that is a scam where these girls are taking advantage of young guys this way…that’s something that deserves investigation.

Note – I feel I need to clarify that I’m not crying for this poor kid. I sort of have to ignore him in this equation as whether or not he’s a jackass really doesn’t effect whether the arguments in here might be more valid than we realize…;-)

@iamthemob All I’m saying is that any contract for sexual services is already invalid due to the illegality of the contract. Thus he needs more than just that for his lawsuit to be successful (contrary to his explicit claims).

It seems that the contract was for, specifically, an hour of time. Erotic time, sure…but that’s still legal (massaging, touching, lap dancing…all of these are not illegal per se). So, the validity of the business relationship isn’t in question in terms of what parties objectively agreed to, regardless of what the intent really was.

That’s all he needs. That’s why it’s interesting for me…the “illegal contract” aspects of it seems a double-edged sword if the other side uses it in a civil sense – they sort of would have to admit criminal activity to defend a contract claim to get it thrown out.

The only tragic thing about this is that apparently the guy couldn’t last the hour he paid for.

Now he’ll just be called “Limpy” for the rest of his life.

@iamthemob From what I’ve read about the case, he’s claiming that there were two contracts: one for the lap dance (made while sober), and one for the sex act (made while drunk). He wants his money back for the lap dance because the woman didn’t spend enough time with him. He wants his money back for the sex act because he says the contract was invalid due to his intoxication.

This is why my original analysis was that his only hope was to get his money back for the legally binding contract—but only if there was a base rate for the service. With regards to the illegal contract, on the other hand, it seems to me that the other side doesn’t need to admit anything. They can say that the contract never existed, but that it was null and void even if it did exist. That is a fairly standard legal tactic, as I understand it.

@SavoirFaire – But if we look at it that way, if the contract was illegal, then the service/person doesn’t deserve to benefit from it. That’s the result of illegal contracts – they’re void ab initio and the legal research is to reverse any financial aspects of it.

The policy motivation is this: we don’t want people to contract for certain things. Either we punish the person contracting for it, or we punish the person providing it. Making the contract illegal means that it’s as if it never existed. Therefore, a person in possession of another’s money, according to the legal fiction, was never given it consensually, and must return it. So, the result is punishment (in a civil context) of the service provider.

That, for me, makes more sense, as the people providing the service have to run their business knowing that they have no way to legally make the customer pay. If they go to court, they can’t claim “well, he got what he paid for” because it doesn’t matter. Therefore, service providers are less likely to go into the business of providing that service for money (we are solely looking at the civil/contract concepts now).

So, if the contract never existed, this person took his money. She needs to give it back. She took it while she was under the employ of this business, while interacting with the customer. Therefore, the argument may be that they are liable to him for her theft under a respondeat superior theory. Of course, the illegality of the employee’s actions may defeat that, but it requires that they show that she has the funds, and they don’t – they have to return anything gained through illegal means or else they admit that the illegal service was part of the employment and then they are the ones at fault. If she has the money, she’s guilty of something if she keeps it…so it really is a pickle.

I think this explains the concept decently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(law)

@iamthemob Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the consequences of void contracts. My recollection from my business law class was that we want to avoid entering illegal contracts because we have no way of enforcing them, thus we cannot force compliance even if we’ve already paid. The implication was that we couldn’t get our money back either, since we had no right to expect the contract to be fulfilled (meaning we handed over the money willingly, but for nothing—or at least for nothing guaranteed). Thus illegal contracts were presented as the ultimate caveat emptor scenario.

If you are telling me that this is not actually the case, legally speaking, then I have indeed analyzed the situation incorrectly.

@SavoirFaire – You’re right to an extent – the rub here is that the business is making legal contracts, as they’re arguing, with illegal amendments. The illegal part is severable, and therefore void ab initio. The intoxication defense is sort of a denial of the criminal liability associated with making the illegal contract (there was no specific intent), which it seems like they’re attempting to argue undermines the standard lack of recourse against the other party to the contract. Further, it’s bad public policy to allow someone to make these contracts and keep the reward – it’s essentially unjust enrichment. Keeping that is an admission that you promised something illegal that you didn’t deliver – so it’s a fraud of sorts.

In a practical sense, you’re right, because very few people in their right mind would try to enforce a contract that was for illegal services – because you have to go to court. A business making that contract would have no defense as in this case as competence is assumed. If the individual made a deal on behalf of the business, and was incompetent, you’d have two suits. The business would sue for the loss from the agent, and the agent would attempt something like we see here – I was incompetent and that was clear, so I have no criminal liability, which is why I’m bringing this in court because I shouldn’t be prosecuted and here’s the evidence that you have my money.

I think you’re getting hung up on the fact that people attempt nothing as if somehow they could prove that they deserve to be compensated for their investment, they prove that they’re guilty of a crime. Any intelligent person lets that go. But this seems to be an interesting way to actually enforce return on an illegal contract…

@iamthemob Ah, I see. That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification!

@SavoirFaire – No problem.

And I’m not saying whether or not anyone’s right here…this actually just seems like, potentially, a brilliant way to construct an argument.