Not sure exactly what US law says but in English contract law

1 the historic supply of a kidney would be deemed "past performance" and ineligible for present "consideration" (payment), regardless he wants to have it "enforced" / considered now.

2 since the commercial supply of organs is "illegal", he is basically demanding payment against what amounts to an illegal contract, something else which is legally unenforcable.

Personally, I find the idea of payment for such things totally immoral and no different to something which my ex-wife implied as having given me the "best years of her lifes"

and to which, I simply responded -

"they were the best years of her life only because she spent them with and had them funded by me" :-)

Hi Col... yes.. relationships :)... they get complicated.

I suppose one might think twice before parting with one's kidney unless you had resolved to accept all possible scenarios which may come.

I can't see the man has any legal right here.. I'm only considering the fact that she is alive because of his kidney... difficult for me to get past that.
P.S. see u this sunday at the statue in front of the State Lib :) 2.00pm unless complications.

'P.S. see u this sunday at the statue in front of the State Lib :) 2.00pm unless complications.'

That sounds very suspicios. I wonder what this meeting will be about. Comrades. Wink Wink. Viva la revelution!

They'll be easy to pick - Porky'll be the Elmer Fudd type with a sign saying "Islam Sucks", while Troll Scrooge will be the Victor Meldrew lookalike carrying a sign saying "Socialism by Stealth".

With any luck, they'll both be arrested.

Polycarp,

Talking about divorce settlements ...

This is a perfect example of being
careful, with what information you
provide to lawyers ...

Sometimes it pays to keep your mouth shut.

Take Col's case.

He openly admits in his previous post, that the
'best years' of his wife's life were as
a result of being married to him, and
funded by him. Her lawyer would then
argue for the maintenance of the
life-style to which she's become
accustomed.

Col's settlement to his wife must
have been HUGE.

Polycarp:

"HUSBAND GIVES KIDNEY TO WIFE..

"WIFE CHEATS ON HUSBAND

"HUSBAND DEMANS EITHER THE KIDNEY BACK OR A MILLION DOLLARS."

Polycarp 2 hours later:

"yes there are many sides to the story...I've not thought terribly deeply about this."

Polycarp 5 hours later:

"The man gave part of his body.. to keep the one he loved alive... surely there is more to this than just 'organ donation' and then 'divorce settlement'?"

I've got a radical new idea for YOU Polycarp. It's this: What about doing some research (call it homework if you prefer) before you burst into print with your opinion on any little 'news' story that tickles your fancy?

One advantage, I'm led to believe is that you would know the relevant facts of the matter BEFORE you develop an opinion. I know! I know! You're a busy man with lots on your agenda and you've never bothered much about facts in the past.

But hey, it's a new year and you could just give it a fling. What have you got to lose but your reputation? Not much at stake there.