Preface: this thread was written, ultimately, in response to misunderstandings of contract law that were being posted in response to discourse surrounding a "main character" on the vore enthusiast corner of Twitter basically engaging in extremely manipulative behaviour against people who decided to back out of agreements that they'd stop using OCs who had been "canonically" "killed off". The original thread contains some explanation at the beginning due to such, because, you know, Twitter. Can't risk anyone misinterpreting you off of your first tweet in a long thread.

Needless to say, though, coercing people in a kink context is scummy; don't do it.

PS: I entirely rewrote the thread for Cohost purposes, in terms of form. The substance is basically the same.

I am not yet a lawyer, and this post is not legal advice.

Issue

You, the person reading this post, are absolutely wondering whether a contract in which a "prey" roleplayer agrees that they will stop using an OC of theirs after a vore RP with the "pred" roleplayer who offered this contract, in exchange for that RP, is a valid, enforceable contract that realistically might be enforced.

The law

The following discusses basically the law as it pertains to formation of contracts in Canada, where there aren't specific statutory things that might render a contract unenforceable. I am assuming that doctrines like unconscionability aren't going to be engaged by a contract of such a petty nature as a kink contract. This is fairly applicable in the UK, the US (maybe other than Louisiana?), Australia, and New Zealand, as well as other common law jurisdictions, but conversely, if you're in Québec, this is probably useless. (However, check whether contract law in your jurisdiction assumes contract formation occurs in the place where a contract is offered vs. the place where it is accepted; this might vary from place to place.)

What even is a contract?

Good question! It's basically any agreement between two parties that isn't, for other legal reason, nonexistent ab initio (as opposed to void or voidable), which has:

• An offer,
• which is accepted,
• where the offer is accompanied by consideration,
• in which the terms are certain,
• where there is intent to be legally bound.

This does not need to be a big, fancy, sprawling piece of legalese, drafted by seven lawyers under candlelight, signed with the blood of a court clerk's firstborn son, containing precisely 13 magical words, whose serifs form 6 pentagrams across the document. It just needs to be any agreement in which those above elements are present, and can even arise in the context of a verbal conversation, with no paperwork whatsoever. Hell, you handing a cashier a few bucks for some food at a fast food place is accepting a contract.

Offer

Simple: just someone offering to contract with someone, where all the obligations within the contract are present. This is basically tested on an "average person" kind of objective test — would your average person think that the offer was, well, offering to enter into legally binding relations on the specific terms listed?

Acceptance

When someone accepts that offer on exactly the terms within. No "yeah, sure, if you change x" (that's a counteroffer which would then need to be accepted by the other party); just accepting the offer as it is.

Consideration

The offering party giving something — anything — in exchange for the recipient of the offer accepting. In common law, it's often said that a peppercorn is consideration enough.

Certainty

Consideration is one part of evidence of certainty, with the other parts being that the contract must not be missing any essential terms in a manner where the commercial/social context of the contract doesn't permit the court inferring them, and that the contract must not be so vague that unambiguous performance of it is impossible.

Intention

Do the parties intend to be legally bound by the contract?

• In a commercial context: this is assumed in the affirmative. This presumption can be rebutted via a statement that the contract is not a binding contract, unless, for some reason, the court infers that it absolutely is intended to be one — say, if the "not a contract" wording is clearly dishonest, fraudulent, or something of the sort.
• In a social/familial context: assumed in the negative. Once again, a rebuttable presumption, when it is made clear that contractual relations are intended.

What does it mean for a contract to be "binding"?

If a contract is binding — say, when it is properly formed, not void, not voidable + voided, not illegal, and otherwise clears every bar needed to be a contract and is not rendered Not A Contract by anything, then it is "binding", in the sense that it can be brought to a court and the court can technically enforce it.

What can be done when a contract is breached?

First of all: nothing, if the party alleging breach never takes the dispute to court. A contract's force comes entirely from the backing of the court — and its power over the administrative state, financial institutions, and the police. A contract no one is willing to enforce is a contract for which there are no remedies in the event of a breach. But, for the purposes of this discussion, when someone does take a breach to court, their potential remedies — and they don't always have much choice as to which! — usually fall into two categories:

Common law remedies

These are the various monetary remedies that, based on some measurement or another, compensate one party for their loss/lack of gain/&c. and/or revoke the unearned profits/other gains/averted losses of the breaching party. Where money is not being exchanged for goods or services, the relevance of these is limited.

Equitable remedies

These are the less/non-monetary remedies that the Court of Chancery invented, back before it got merged into the normal common law system. The point in these was filling gaps in the remedies and relief that common law permitted.

Principles applicable to all equitable remedies

For contractual disputes, these can only be used when:

• The contract is valid and legal
• The subject of the potential remedies is unique, in the sense that money cannot truly make up for what the plaintiff has lost
• The plaintiff, in the context of that contract and its history, has "clean hands" — they have acted honestly, such that the court doesn't need to dissuade their misbehaviour by depriving them of the benefit of equitable remedies
• No excessive hardship would fall upon the defendant, any third parties, or the court

Equity, being somewhat of a vibes-based domain of law that evolved specifically to fill shortfalls that judges saw in common law (strictly speaking), involves a lot more subjective balancing of interests than much of the rest of contract law, which mostly developed as a tool for coordinating the predictable, smooth operation of the economy, ranging from Norman-imposed feudalism through mercantilism and the whole history of capitalism.

Equitable damages

What happens when equitable principles are used to require the breaching party to pay some amount of money to the party that suffered the breach, so as to "make up for" the non-monetary loss of the other party.

Injunctions

When the court orders that someone not do something, as a form of relief.

Specific performance

The opposite of an injunction, kind of. When the court orders that someone do a specific thing.

Application

So let's apply it to this hypothetical contract. How well does a hypothetical permavore contract hold up against the law, and in terms of enforceability?

Is it even a contract?

In many cases, it totally can be.

Offer

"I'll RP this scene with you if you retire this OC of yours." Definitely an offer; basically certainly has implied terms re.: the degree of effort and quality in the RP, and probably has implied terms that the contract is "accepted" at some point during the RP.

Acceptance

Probably established through the "prey" going along with the scene up to a certain point. Depends on how it's drafted; could, once again, involve implied terms.

Consideration

The "pred" doing their end of the RP could be consideration, so that's present.

Certainty

Assuming the "pred" doesn't try to overplay their hand re.: demands they're making — say, suddenly demanding that someone hand over the legal license they have to use art of the subject OC, when that wasn't part of the offer or acceptance — this should be pretty certain. This kind of agreement is hypothetically pretty simple and straightforward.

Intention

Social context, so it's assumed to not be intended to be legally binding. Given how common non-binding kink contracts are, even with wording that clearly discusses legal force, this presumption is likely even stronger here, though these sorts of contracts have, as far as I know, never been tested in court.

Is it binding?

In the absence of any laws that forbid, say, contracts of a sexual nature that aren't regarding the actual performance of sex acts, probably, if it's got all the elements of a valid contract. This isn't a contract that permits or requires any criminality or transparently unconscionable obligations, so it should be, technically, enforceable somehow.

What remedies can practically be used in breach?

Under the somewhat strong assumption that this doesn't get thrown out at any stage due to the factual ridiculousness or general pettiness of the contract in question… … …well, the remedies aren't much, and really aren't likely to be that helpful to a "pred" trying to make the "prey" hold up their end of the ostensible deal.

Common law remedies

Unless money went from one party to the other, these remedies are nearly irrelevant. Hard to compensate someone for money they spent for no benefit when no money was ever spent, so on.

Equitable remedies

Given the non-monetary nature of the loss, these are much more likely to be applicable.

Compliance with the principles of equitable remedies

Can these even be used in this case? Well,

• The contract is valid and legal: it may well be.
• The subject of the potential remedies is unique, in the sense that money cannot truly make up for what the plaintiff has lost: yes, "this specific person no longer using this specific OC" is definitely unique.
• The plaintiff, in the context of that contract and its history, has "clean hands" — they have acted honestly, such that the court doesn't need to dissuade their misbehaviour by depriving them of the benefit of equitable remedies: entirely depends on the facts of the case.
• No excessive hardship would fall upon the defendant, any third parties, or the court: this is best assessed per remedy.

Injunctions and specific performance

Probably falls apart at the "excessive hardship" stage. The interest of someone in being able to keep using a character, generally speaking, probably exceeds the interest in another of that character no longer being used. This probably especially goes for fursonas or other main/otherwise highly important OCs. Once again, being an equity issue, this assessment is vibes-based, but as courts are usually fairly reluctant to throw around injunctions or specific performance loosely (huge emphasis on "usually"), and enforcement of this could get highly invasive, courts are likely to try to not take this route in such a breach.

Equitable damages

In recognition of the fact that, technically, a contract was breached, a judge totally could give equitable damages of some amount or another, just to send a signal that the "prey" should probably be a bit less cavalier about agreeing to legally binding contracts, even if they're in the form of a text conversation or whatever, or to technically fulfill their obligation to, where there is a contractual breach and no compelling legal reason to give full relief to the person breaching, order compensation.

Conclusion

Or: but really, what's the chance of any proceedings happening, let alone succeeding?

Probably jack shit. I doubt anyone wants to have their legal name enshrined on LexisNexis or CanLII forever as being that person who went to court to enforce a contract they entered into for hog-cranking purposes. Even if they were willing to debase themself like that in front of an actual, literal judge and anyone who keeps track of court proceedings generally, the cost barrier, even in small claims or other such systems (due to the opportunity cost inherent in spending that much time on such a dispute, particularly given the amount of legal research that'd be needed), would probably be a barrier to even people with money to blow on stuff like this — the remedy is probably going to be an absolutely paltry sum.