MAID CONTRACTS - THE LEGAL POSITION!
1. Maid Contracts ARE legal!
A judge in Miami stunned spectators and the defendant by declaring that his Contract of Service with an older woman was
'a simple, and eminently enforceable, contract of labour.'The woman, Sally-Jean Becham, 50yrs, had asked the court to rule on the validity of a contract signed by James Woolworth, 23 yrs. The defendant had promised, in writing, to serve as a uniformed maid, in the plaintiff's house.
Judge Horatio Wallenberg told the young man, 'Your lawyer has made much of the so-called, sexual-nature' of your contract. He has described it as a fantasy, a game that should not be taken seriously. There are many reasons why individuals enter in a labour contract and they are not always purely financial. . The case centres on one over-riding question, is there a contract in law? And the answer is clearly - yes. You signed a piece of paper, which is headed by the words, 'Contract of Service'. You agreed to provide work in exchange for room and board and clothing, plus five dollars a week. Miss Becham has produced detailed evidence, in regard to the cost of your uniforms and underwear, as well as the food you consumed. I find for the plaintiff, and urge both parties to consider a deal between themselves in regard to damages and or compensation.'
You will hear his evidence and hers!
2. MAID CONTRACTS ARE UNENFORCEABLE!
Miss Diana Bowers of North Carolina burst into tears when told by a district court judge that her action for damages against her younger lover was to be dismissed. Miss Bowers, aged 45, an hotelier had produced to the court a document she described as a contract which would force Alan Blysdeale, aged 27, to be her maid for life.
'This is an unusual case,' the judge told a packed court-room, 'but it is not a difficult or complicated one. The plaintiff asks this court to enforce the unenforceable, namely a state of slavery. The defendant, a foolish and deviant young man, did indeed sign a contract-of-sorts, with the plaintiff. He promised, in writing, to obey her and serve her in both the bedroom and the kitchen, for the rest of his life. Much has been made of the fact that this was essentially a sexual agreement. It is also obvious that the plaintiff misses the defendant's sexual activities as much as his workload. The court's position is clear - if the so-called contract had included an element of payment or reward for the defendant, and if the time scale of the work or employment had been specific, there might indeed be a case to answer. As it was, the defendant supplied his own uniforms, was paid no wages and the time-scale involved was in effect, forever. The case is dismissed.'
Her Views. His Views. And more.
How do I become a uniformed maid?