So one of the things that's beautiful about contract law cases is the way in which seemingly very simple facts can illustrate really deep and complex ideas about society and economics. Take, for example, the case of Alaska Packers versus Domenico case. What happened in this case? Basically what it was, was a salmon fishery, the company built a salmon canning factory in Alaska. For anybody who knows anything about the salmon fishing season, it's a relatively limited season. Back then you could basically catch as much fish as you could get within a certain window of time. So what happened in this case? A bunch of day laborers, seamen, get hired just randomly, in San Francisco, they get on a ship. they're employed to go out and catch salmon. They're gonna take the ship out. They're gonna load it up with salmon. They're gonna take it up to Alaska to get canned, the company's just built a brand new canning factory, and they need the revenue from the fish to be able to finance the factory. What happens? They get out in the middle of the ocean, the seamen go on strike and they demand that their pay get doubled. It's not like the captain can call back to the headquarters and ask what he should do with this. He gives in, accedes to their demands. They go back to work. They work the season, they go back to San Francisco and they sue for the higher pay. What does the court say? The court says no. Contract is unenforceable. You might think, well, it was a voluntary contract. The court says yes, but no. Why is this an important case? Because what the court is essentially saying is the bargains that we trust or the bargains that occur on the dock in San Francisco, when you've got a competitive market for workers and a competitive market for employers, once you get out in the middle of the ocean, you're in this situation where all of a sudden the workers have leverage. Why? Because basically what they know is if they go on strike, then the company's gonna lose its investment in the salmon cannery. So, what is the logic of this case? We want to prevent that opportunistic behavior by parties. We want people to be able to enter into contracts where they can trust that once you enter into the contract, you're not gonna go on strike when you're in the middle of the ocean, and can't be replaced. Interestingly, the court also noted One reason you have to do that is because in theory, the employer could sue the employees, but as the court notes, they don't have any money, they're judgment proof. And so they basically have nothing to lose from this behavior. I think it's a wonderful example of how very simple facts and a very simple contract actually illustrates very deep ideas about the value of having enforceable contracts to allow parties to go through with a transaction here, which is seemingly simple at first glance, but actually fairly complex because of the time involved and the nature of the relationship between the cannery, which has a lot of capital in the workers.