Iniciado por Berebere

¿Guardería?

"La mujer explicó a los investigadores que no tenía donde vivir"

Si esto tiene que ir a la guardería, en un foro que analiza los problemas de la vivienda, ¿qué pasa con la mitad de los hilos que se abren aquí?.

Lecherous landlord's 'payment in kind' contract proves legally leaky
(Ey, no sabía que "pagar en especias" se dice en inglés "payment in kind" )

A horny old Hokkaido landlord has landed himself in hot water for trying to enforce a deal he made with one of his young female tenants, who promised him her body if she failed to pay off her debts, according to Asahi Geino (6/5).

Kazuo Niioka, the 75-year-old landlord, was arrested for attempted indecent assault after he insisted the 21-year-old woman -- who owed him a few hundred thousand yen (el yen está algo así como la peseta, para que os hagais una idea)-- fulfill a written promise she had made to him to have sex if she failed to pay him back by a particular date. (Así que había contrato escrito!!!)

Niioka has apparently admitted to the charge against him, but the men's weekly ponders just how legally binding the original agreement he made with the young housewife who became indebted to him would have been anyway.

"Legally, not at all," Hakuoh University law Professor Takeshi Domoto tells Asahi Geino. "Using the promise of a physical relationship as collateral would fall under Article 90 of the Civic Code, which prohibits behavior offensive to public order and morals. There is no legal obligation to fulfill the contract, which in itself was an illegal one to make."

But wouldn't there be some grounds for making the contract legal, considering both parties were willing signatories? Apparently not, the law expert says.

"In the days when parents used to sell their daughters into whorehouses , there were precedents where the girl's employment contract and the contract concerning the money given to the parents were both declared null," Domoto says. "(The Hokkaido case) is simply a modern version of one of those cases."

What this all adds up to, the men's weekly says, is that cases like that allegedly involving Niioka's mean the man is not only unlikely to find the law on his side if he seeks its help in gaining carnal satisfaction, it probably won't help get back the money he lent, either.

"Some people may look at the documents and think at first that it is a binding agreement because it's signed by consenting parties, but the reality is that such a deal constitutes human trafficking," Domoto tells Asahi Geino. "Human trafficking is, of course, illegal, and making a contract based on illegal activities is naturally also going to be against the law." (By Ryann Connell)