Today’s Lesson: Make Sure Your Sex Contracts With Law Students Are Ironclad

You’re old enough now that we can probably tell you about this. Sometimes when a rich lawyer and a law student like each other very much and are going to do lots of lawyer-pays-student sexytime, they write up a contract to ensure mutual satisfaction. But sometimes those contracts aren’t written very well and hilarity ensues.


First off, let us find out what went into this sexytime contract. Turns out it went through many rounds of negotiations, like you do when you’re contracting for sexytime for monies. London Big Firm Lawyer tried to muscle Sexytime Student into a confidentiality clause in the contract she simply did not think was fair, so she signed the document with only part of her signature because every law student knows that magically makes it not a legally binding document. Wait what?

[Proposed clause 2] The parties undertake to each other that they will respect this confidentiality and acknowledge that if copies of any such confidential written communications or the contents of confidential oral or written communications are disclosed to any third party this will be a serious breach of confidentiality entitled the injured party to an award of damages and the party in breach will not oppose the injured party obtaining an injunction without notice to prevent any further infringement.”

TDD [the law student] insisted on the crossing out of the words in clause 2. She also signed the document with only part of her normal signature (she omitted the Chinese characters she usually used). She states she did this to mark that she did not believe the document had any legal effect. She had received no legal advice herself, she was not signing willingly, she was alone in his flat with him, he was a lawyer, and he was very angry.

At least in these here Yoo-nited States, you can’t generally make a contract for something that is illegal in the first place. Or, more to the point, you’re perfectly welcome to make the contract, but good luck going to court to enforce that sucker, especially if it has language like this.

• On 28 July at 5:26 pm he sent her his proposal for an arrangement between the two of them:

“Contract. 1 one month trial. 2 3k upfront. 3 Sex next Saturday and for one month following and staying over like before. 4. [A particular type of sexual act] included. 5. Faithful… no other partners… neither side allowed to [another kind of sexual act is identified] starting NOW. Agreed? You will need good excuse for [another man] or dump him. You can add terms for me to consider”.

• She texted back that she was happy with that adding “But [the sexual act he had named in his clause 4] + exclusivity costs extra 2k + blood test result. Then unlimited sex anytime”.

• He sent another email to her at 7:58 pm under the subject line “Compromise”:

“Forget [the sexual act he had named in his clause 4]… keep it for wedding nite…with whoever is luck man! Blood test for what…STD? And u will take pill. Hate condom. And no sex til we start…and both faithful while we see how it works out? Xx”

We’re assuming clause 4’s unnamed sexual act was anal, right? Gotta be anal, because everyone saves that for their wedding night, just like Jesus says.

This all sounds like quite the recipe for successful sexing, so how did things go so horribly awry for our lovebirds? Oh, probably around the time that the young lady decided to tell the solicitor’s children about his sexytime exploits.


He sued TDD after an e-mail from his youngest daughter in May last year said she had received ‘indescribably sickening messages’ from a woman and told him: ‘I really don’t think we are going to be able to have much of a father-daughter relationship from now on.’

You know, that is not a nice thing to do even if you do not have a contract prohibiting you from revealing anything about your sexytime! Do not tell the children of your sexual partners about sexing. That’s just rude. And weird.

Also weird: the judge actually gave some lengthy considerations to these claims before ruling against our rich yet no doubt virile solicitor protagonist, in part because he goaded TDD into it.

In his judgment she was in breach of her duty of confidentiality in disclosing that information to third parties.

But the confidentiality agreement she signed was unenforceable on grounds of public policy because it purported to give up her right to complain of suspected exploitation. […]

The judge said: ‘I have also found that AVB took pleasure in provoking TDD’s anger and other emotions, and it would not be just that he should receive damages for those occasions when his provocations resulted in the excessive reactions which I have found.’

So if you bully your paid sexytime companion into a confidentiality agreement that would block them from complaining about you if you were doing something worth complaining about, that contract is null and void, so even though you breach the contract by TELLING THE MAN’S KIDS ABOUT HIS SEX ROMPS you’re not at fault. Also, too, he totally made her do it by goading her.

American lawsplaining note: You can’t sign away your right to complain about exploitation in ‘Merica either. You used to be able to sign a contract with a business in which you agreed you would do ANYTHING — like work at Dangerous Explosive Unregulated Mine, LLC for 16 hours a day — because hey, you were freely contracting. In the 1930s, the goddamn activist Supreme Court judges invalidated those laws and said that people don’t typically stand on equal footing with their employers so you can’t just have some sort of wild no-holds-barred land of contracting where you can agree to anything on earth, even if it hurts you, just because you sign a contract. Chief Justice John Roberts would dearly like to see this undone, and return to the Golden Era of corporations being able to demand anything whatsoever of their workers with no protections at all. Freedom!

The judge found that sexy student lady did indeed break Mr. Big McRichpants’s confidentiality, but also said that just because he was embarrassed by the whole thing, he wasn’t actually caused any real distress, so no money for him.

We hope they can both put this whole embarrassing affair behind them and find new people to love pay to have sex with.

[Daily Mail/Legal Cheek]

You may also like...