No one can contest that a contract existed
Between my client and the respondent;
That much is beyond debate—nor did my client coerce
This miller’s-daughter-who-would be queen,
Unless one would argue that providing her the means to obtain
All that she truly desired somehow equates to coercion.
As for my learned colleague’s claim that the agreement is void
Due to the imposition of usurious terms by my client,
May I remind you that at no point did the respondent
In this case decline to accept this quid pro quo;
Indeed, she happily re-negotiated the terms
Of the very pact she now seeks to void!
“Ah,” opposing counsel claims, “Our client fulfilled
The terms of the agreement in accordance with the law.”
I must say, I find my distinguished friend’s definition
Of fulfillment rather odd—through the use of illegal trespass
And surveillance methods of dubious legitimacy,
His client gained such information as was required
To exercise the out-clause of this agreement,
So if one accepts the use of industrial espionage as a valid means
Of satisfying a contractual obligation, I suppose the argument holds water.
Whether legal precedent supports such an argument
Is, at best, highly uncertain.
Again, members of the jury, I know full well where your sympathies lie.
All along, opposing counsel has implied we should celebrate her pluckiness,
Her cunning and initiative, her stunning trip
From rags to riches. My friends, I would argue this:
There is, indeed, a moral to every story.
Are our obligations and promises no more, at the end of the day,
Than mere the interview portions of a beauty pageant,
Where a winning smile or long blonde hair
Serve as just cause to blithely disregard those oaths?
Are our most sacred vows less binding on those
That nature has made the mirror a friend to
Than those of us who are unattractive and underloved?
Ladies and gentlemen, it is up to you to write
The final chapter of our fable. I thank you.