The Tortious Nature of 'Mom' Haircuts

Joanna links to a lengthy discussion over at a site called Morphing Into Mama that examines the duties spouses ought owe one another to maintain a certain level of physical attractiveness. More specifically, as Ms. Robinson puts it:

if you are cute with long hair and a svelte body and then cut off the hair and gain 40 pounds over the course of your marriage, it’s false advertising and unfair to the Hubbidy Hub Hub.

Personally, I don't see how the claim of fraudulent inducement holds. Even were this a products case, argued under terms of strict liability, where is the evidence that establishes ex ante defect on the part of the manufacturer? With any tangible asset, you have to allow for ordinary wear-and-tear as a matter of course.

But, of course, it's not a products case, but rather, one of contract. Well, look to the habendum clause ("to have and to hold," indicating transfer of property.) The promissor entered into a contractual vow "to love and to cherish" the promissee under conditions that may be "for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health."

Certainly, a prima facie reading of that language would cover weight gains and unfortunate haircuts, would it not? (Though, to be fair, it is a MUTUALLY binding promise, so the husband would be equally entitled to bring a claim for breach should his wife renege on her loving/cherishing commitments in response to his growing a mullet or a paunch.)

Now, obviously, compelling specific performance isn't going to be terribly effective in such cases. But there is another clear strategy that either party (both the one who feels unloved and the one who objects to the partner's eating and/or grooming habits) may opt for as a fall-back strategy -- just withhold sex. It's a veritable surety bond right there between your legs.

But please do knock off this "false advertising" nonsense. There's been enough tortification of contract law as it is, and in case you hadn't noticed, claims of marital fraud are already spreading through Hollywood like a SoCal wildfire. First, there was Renee and Kenny. More recently, you had Chad and Sophia. This gross perversion of the basic law of contracts needs no further encouragement.

So, in short, no, this is absolutely not false advertising. This is what's called "not reading the fine print."

Comments

[einzige]

Another reason John Beverley Robinson got it right when he said, in 1889:

What is Marriage?

Is it the happy association of a man and a woman, suited to each other in body and in mind, in tastes and in sentiments, by harmony or by contrast, rejoicing each in the mere presence of the other. ...[I]s this marriage?

By no means. This is not marriage. This is love. No marriage is necessary for such sweet involvements.

Marriage is not the happy and voluntary living together of men and women.

Marriage is a club. Now I have got you; if you try to get away, I will club you. That is what marriage is. And anyone can see its endearing influence.

[Jon Corzine, Revenue Escalatory Specialist]

I like the new look Ray......it's definately YOU......