Breaking Magical Contracts (Re: The names in the Goblet)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 97057

Jen wrote: 
This could explain why everyone just accepts Dumbledore's 
explanation at face value. Even Karkaroff & Madame Maxime, when 
arguing over two Hogwarts champions, don't suggest Harry can just 
back out. You'd think from the concern DD shows over Harry competing 
that if he *could* get out of it, DD would insist he do so. 

Jim Ferer (I think--unsigned post) responded: 
What bothers me about it is that Harry didn't enter into anything. 
Can you sign a contract for me? You can not.  How can Crouch!Moody
bind Harry to a magical contract?  It's totally counterintuitive. 
It's also reality, so I had to get over it.

Carol:
As Dumbledore says, *the placing of the name in the goblet*
constitutes a binding contract. The goblet doesn't know who put the
name in, and Crouch!Moody's case complicated the business by using a
confundus spell on the goblet so it would have to choose a fourth name
(Harry's), the only one in its category. Once Harry has been chosen by
the goblet, he has no alternative but to compete. I don't know what
the consequences are for failing to honor the contract, and I know
it's unethical for Crouch!Moody to put Harry's name in the goblet (not
that such conduct is surprising from a would-be murderer), but that
doesn't make the contract less binding, counterintuitive or not.
Dumbledore believes that Harry didn't put his own name in the cup, but
there's nothing he can do. And ultimately, as Jen says, even Karkaroff
and Madame Maxime have to accept that.

Unless you're of the ESE!Dumbledore persuasion and believe that
Dumbledore could have done something to get Harry off the hook but
didn't (and based on your last sentence, I take it you're not), I
don't see any alternative but to believe that it was a binding magical
contract regardless of who put the name in the goblet.

Carol