[HPforGrownups] Binding magical contracts

[PAGAN MICHELLE I]

No: HPFGUIDX 48257



Simon Nickerson wrote:

> (1) What form does this obligation take? (I assume it's nothing as
> prosaic as a Muggle law court!) What would have happened to Harry if he
> had simply refused to take part in the tournament?

For me, this question is similar to ones I've had about the entire
judicial system of the WW (if there even is one).  From what we've seen
with the DE "trials" (if they can even truly be called that) the system
seems so arbitrary.  Furthermore, (as long as we're asking law questions)
-- I presume that minors in the WW are then allowing to enter into binding
contracts?  Much different from the muggle world (at least in the U.S.).
Does no one care about the kids' competence, maturity ?::cough cough Fred
and George!::


 > (2) Who is able to set up a magical contract?


It seems to me that anyone would be able to set up a contract, since it
appears anyone (well, minors in this case) can enter into one..

> > (3) How is it that you can force someone into a contract without them
> actually agreeing to it? (I am thinking, of course, of Harry being
> forced to enter the Triwizard Tournament without his consent.)

This question brings me to another one (I'm sorry, this post seems to add
more questions instead of bringing possible answers!) -- the kids write
their name on a piece of parchment and from that they are chosen?  Based
on what? Yes, in GoF Dumbledore (I think it was Dumbledore) says what the
champions will be based upon, but how does the goblet know the
characteristics of the kids?   At first I was thinking, perhaps the
essence of the student is in the handwriting -- but of course, Harry
didn't put his name in, so that doesn't make sense.  So is it purely upon
the name?  That seems so...arbitrary again...in the MW tons of people have
the same name, I would imagine that even the smaller WW might have some
common names in there...

> (4) Isn't there a tremendous scope for abuse by dark wizards (even more
> than we've seen so far)?

Since MoM people (Crouch, etc.) were able to add an age restriction, I
think there were other precautions that could have been taken that
weren't.  Why?  Laziness, or purposefully?  I suppose they were thinking
that Hogwarts is such a closed off society that it would be hard for any
foul play to occur -- but we all know what happens when you assume!
Therefore, my answer is yes, there's tremendous scope for abuse but not so
if proper precautions are taken, which they weren't in this case.

> (5)
>Assuming that you really *are* obliged to fulfil your part of
>a  contract, could contracts be used as a means of ensuring loyalty (to
> Voldemort or Dumbledore) without the drawbacks of the Imperius curse?

Even though Dumbledore told the students to make sure they wanted to be in
the tournament for there was no backing out, I'm sure there was a way, and
that it just wasn't very pleasant, and could be even painful.  For that
though, you must believe that any contract can be broken.  If any contract
can be broken, you don't have complete loyalty in the way you do when
someone is under the Imperious curse.

Polaris
--who was also really offended by the nasty political jabs made towards
the U.S. the other day and hopes (since she's a newbie) that they don't
occur again.