However, where in first year contracts is a contract held to be analgous with law?
Open a first year contracts textbook to page 1. Read it. I happen to have Summers and Hillman handy. Let's see what it says:
"Among the types of law to be studied here are judge-made common law, statutes adopted by legislatures, and regulations made by administrators. Officials make all of these types of law. But most of the law in this field is not made by officials. It is made by private parties (with or without the aid of lawyers), and consists of the terms of their agreements, express and implied."
Contracts are law. The rest of your nonsensical post (not to mention the laughable ad hominem) therefore falls apart entirely. Still, for those reading the thread with interest, here goes.
It has the FORCE of law, you are correct, and is BOUND by law. HOWEVER, it is NOT law.
You do realize that what you just said is an impossible construction, I hope. If it has the force of law and is legally binding, it is, by definition, law.
Laws, by their definition, have to be passed by a body with the authority to do so.
Statutes must be passed by a duly authorized body.
Law is much broader, encompassing statutes, common law, constitutional law, private law, and administrative law.
Please, tell me WHICH law breaking an NDA with Apple violates.
The law of contract.
See e.g.
Valco Cincinnati, Inc. v. N & D Machining Service, Inc., 24 Ohio St.3d 41, 48 (1986).
Another hint - if you can't come back with a SPECIFIC law (cite to the specific law, it HAS to be published and passed by a body if it is a law), it is a PRINCIPLE OF CONTRACTS.
A "PRINCIPLE OF CONTRACTS" is law. If it weren't, no court of law could apply it.
Courts hold that a defendant is "liable for breach of contract." Not breach of any specific law.
Naturally, because there is not necessarily a statute to cite. The law forbids a breach of an agreement. Illegal, as defined by Black's, 8th: "illegal, adj. Forbidden by law; unlawful".
Not limited to: criminal, in violation of a statute, or any of the other bizarre concepts you advance.
In order to get damages, there must be an injury ("The violation of another's legal right, for which the law provides a remedy; a wrong or injustice.")--an injury requires an unlawful act. If you can't demonstrate an unlawful act on the part of the defendant, you are ineligible for any remedy at law--most importantly, damages.
Which law do I violate when I contract to sell you my car, for adequate consideration, and then breach the contract by selling it to your friend instead.
The law of contracts. It's not complicated.
What law exists to govern jailbreaking iPhones or messing with pre-release software? if it was "illegal" to do so, guess what - NO NEED FOR THE DAMN NDA'S, IS THERE?
You seem to be lost. The NDA exists to create legally-binding rules on the use of the software
not present in statutory law. That's the whole point of the law of contracts.
Breach of contract is breach of a legal duty. It is ipso facto unlawful to breach a legal duty.
I'll call your bluff. Send me a Westlaw URL to anything that speaks to the contrary.
