and a "contract by any other name..." may be correct, but that contract is only as valid as it's terms - irrespective of that fact that it is a signed contract. And contractually speaking (in the event it applies) "bait and switch" is a huge issue too.
but first of all, when Angela mentioned the "gov't lies and everyone knows that" - well then, ok, so no person should have the right to ever litigate anything in any court, meaning no divorce, no wrongful death, no nothing - why? well because "people lie" too and everyone knows that! - so if you suffer legitimate damages...then we will say what? it's your own fault for ignoring the fact that people lie?
Secondly, to the contract issue - many, many things come into play there - and on the part of the signee, things such as "a reasonable expectation to" whatever... coverage, privacy (the list is endless) etc.., would apply here-
and breach of reasonable expectations in and of itself alone is legitmate reason grounds to file suit - then there are numerous others that would/could apply such as "bargaining in good faith" and on it goes - but the point is she has every right "to expect that which was promised" -
a contract is supposed to "bind two parties in agreement" it IS NOT to dupe or deceive one of the parties - nor to jockey for position which is all too common today.
so the very first thing a judge/jury would want/need to know is the precise "terms of that contract" - and exactly what was agreed to by the parties -
Also how the contract is worded, because Federal Gov't or not, legally there should be no "deliberate intent to deceive"
even taking into condiseration that in contract law, every punctuation mark, every preposition etc, is subject to interpretation.
and speaking of the jury? (since I'm already running amuck in this arena)well during the voir dire process... I would seek to have anyone who has not
a) ever been in combat or
b) has not ever been threatened with being sent to combat when it was not their choice...
excused as a potential witness - :)
but the smart money here says the gov't, being the gov't, knows that the likelihood of anyone pursuing a breach suit on their own is slim to none, because litigation is very costly and time consuming.
Moreover, unless you are fortunate enough to find your own Ed Masry as an attorney, you may likely go broke before the case is settled or won.
However the entire point of my little diatribe was to say I have absolutely no idea how anyone can speak to her commitment, unless they have reviewed her contractual agreement.
Nor am I saying if you signed up saying you'd go to combat if called, that one shouldn't honor that commitment.
I am saying, if I volunteer to help - it is not acceptable to send me into combat - just becasue I said I would work in the office here, simply becasue my name is a contract that in no way delineates that. As unless it was set forth as such, I would not be bound by the contract to perform.