KIM VS SON: BLOOD CONTRACT 3
Kim Vs Son: The Blood Contract
The issue in the case in which Kim is the complainant and the Sonthe plaintiff, is whether a promissory note written in blood by Son,was enforceable. Son had used blood from his pricked finger to writein Korean that he would pay Kim to the best of his ability. Hefollowed up the note with a written promise in ink saying that hewould pay Kim 170 million Won.
The jury was right to rule in favor of Son for a number of reasons.To begin with, a blood agreement is not recognized by the law, henceis not enforceable. Blood agreements may be important in creatingfriendship pacts but they are useless in the eyes of the law. WhenSon, made the blood agreement, he was highly intoxicated. By law, anycontracts made when one party is under the influence, are null andvoid (Hogg, 2015).
The promissory note written by the son as a follow up to the bloodagreement was also not enforceable. For a promissory note to belegally binding, it should show evidence of receipt of money, havesignatures from both parties, state the amount in question and listthe terms and conditions (Yorio & Thel, 2001). The promissorynote fulfilled only one condition- Son wrote that he would pay Kim170 million won to the best of his ability. The note did not specifywhen Son would pay the debt, hence making it null and avoid. Alsomissing on the note were the signatures of both parties and the termsand conditions of the payment plan.
The jury ruled in favor of Son because the blood agreement did notmeet the criteria of an enforceable promissory note.
Hogg, M. (2015). Promises to Lend, Collateral Warranties, and RedHerrings. Edinburgh Law Review, 19(3), 384-388.
Yorio, E., & Thel, S. (2001). The Promissory Basis of Section 90.Yale Law Journal, 111-167