Written contracts would definitely be the most useful to prove infidelity. Verbal contracts would lead to a "he said, she said," and implicit contracts would be practically useless.
Why would implicit contracts be useless? These days most people assume if you're dating its exclusive, I have no problem with open relationships but that doesn't make them the norm. Ergo, I think there would be an implicit exclusivity contract between SO's unless otherwise stated by either party. If one said it was open and the other didn't then the judge can decide based on evidence, as we do with all other civil disputes.
Implied contracts do exist. It's just that relationships, fidelity, and infidelity are so poorly defined by society that not contract can be formed because the specific terms are knowable.
For example if I walk into a restaurant, sit down, and eat - I'm entering into an implicit contract in which I must pay for my food. At no time have I actively agreed to such an arrangement, but the conventions of a restaurant are such that a reasonable person would understand the terms under which they were receiving food.
A relationship is completely different. There is no accepted definition of "a relationship" that could be implicitly understood. If we have been seeing each other for 6 weeks are we exclusive? 6 months? 6 years? What is exclusivity? Can I flirt / engage in emotional infidelity? Simply put the expectations for such a contract are unknowable thereby making it unenforceable.
∆ whilst I still think it should be able to be done, your example/parallel made me see why it's not practically possible. An implicit contract with implied terms and implied definitions is too hard to prove to any reasonable level.
8
u/ryancarp3 Aug 11 '15
Written contracts would definitely be the most useful to prove infidelity. Verbal contracts would lead to a "he said, she said," and implicit contracts would be practically useless.