Contract law v thief

I am not a lawyer. I have read through some of the state laws and I am interested in knowing if I have the following correct. It in part stems from the Texas case of a hooker being shot and killed after she tried a grab and dash.

A john and hooker agree to terms for a session. At this point thay have a contract, Verbal, written, legal does not matter for this case.

Hooker provides services but the guy refuses to pay afterwords. He has broken the contract but she cannot take any legal action for breach of contract or other grounds because a contract for illegal actions or stuff cannot be enforced.

She takes the money but does not provide any services. She takes the money and leaves even after he demands his money back. She has now committed theft as she took his money and refused to return it when he asked for it back and did not provide the services contracted for. The fact that the services contracted and paid for were illegal is not a factor at this point.

Giving her the money would not be considered a gift as he contracted for services. He did not give the money of his own free will with no expectaion of anything in return. I assume that would be the basis for considering it a gift.

Did I summerize that correctly? Am I understanding the basic concepts of the law correctly?

Thanks

I am not a lawyer. I have read through some of the state laws and I am interested in knowing if I have the following correct. It in part stems from the Texas case of a hooker being shot and killed after she tried a grab and dash.

A john and hooker agree to terms for a session. At this point thay have a contract, Verbal, written, legal does not matter for this case.

Hooker provides services but the guy refuses to pay afterwords. He has broken the contract but she cannot take any legal action for breach of contract or other grounds because a contract for illegal actions or stuff cannot be enforced.

She takes the money but does not provide any services. She takes the money and leaves even after he demands his money back. She has now committed theft as she took his money and refused to return it when he asked for it back and did not provide the services contracted for. The fact that the services contracted and paid for were illegal is not a factor at this point.

Giving her the money would not be considered a gift as he contracted for services. He did not give the money of his own free will with no expectaion of anything in return. I assume that would be the basis for considering it a gift.

Did I summerize that correctly? Am I understanding the basic concepts of the law correctly?

Thanks Originally Posted by OldButStillGoing

I am not a lawyer but if she took his money instead of him giving it as a gift with no expectation of a return then it is theft of property, (the money was his property)

But seriously, when have you ever handed a donation over to a hooker and said "this is for a BBBJ, multiple position sex, and I come on your tits" ?

It is one of those areas were the cops may not help either since "prostitution" is a victim-less crime.. the ones that do this because they want to run the risk of being robbed and the cops will tell them "hey its part of the risk you have to take" so a sympathetic ear may not be found.

same goes for guys who get robbed.

While Texas is an "open contract state," even here: A contract for an illegal act is void ab initio, or void from the beginning. This means that there was no "contract" and no privity between parties for such an act even if there exists a writing or memorialization in support of one. Generally, one cannot enter into a contract for something against the laws of the state in which the contract was established. Thus, one can seldom enforce a breach of the same "dead-on-creation" contract.

Prosecutorial hilarity and/or criminal charges threatened or filed against the complainant when someone seeks to get LE involved. That's where you do your homework, TOFTT occasionally, and just walk away when you need to walk away.

You are telling us in one sentence that the hooker provided the services and in another ...she didn't.
Which is it? If you are saying he killed the hooker for whatever reason......they should hang the "john" by his balls.

Sorry, 2 different possibilities. One or the other type thing. Should have put an OR between them.

In this specific case, the jury areed that once she took the money and tried to leave with it was robbery. Nothing of value was exchaged and it was not a gift. She did a grab and dash. Under Texas laws, one can protect their life and properity during a robbery at night up to and including deadly force. While fleeing, he shot at her car but hit her. She died months later from the wound.

I have no interest in discussing the moral issues of the case. Its been discused to death in other threads. I am only interested in seeing if I understand the underlying laws.

Thanks