Where tort law is concerned, it is always incumbent on the plaintiff, or the injured party, to prove the wrong was perpetrated. The attorney representing the plaintiff in tort actions must be able to prove that his client suffered injury because the defendant failed to do something that he was obligated to do under the law, and must show that his client suffered damages because of this failure to comply. Damages can be physcial, but they can also be mental, emotional, or monetary, or any combination thereof. As long as the plaintiff can prove suffering, there is a case for compensation of loss.

Contract formation begins with the willingness of one party to extend an offer of a binding agreement. An acceptance is a statement agreeing to the terms of the offer. When the contract is formally accepted, the parties enter into a legally binding relationship. When the parties agree to exchange consideration or something of value then the contract becomes valid.

Implied contracts are legally enforceable by the terms of conduct between the contractual parties. Contractual parties may enter into a verbal agreement referred to as an oral contract because it is not in writing. Written contracts document the obligations of the parties and the agreed upon consideration. Some types of agreements are legally required to be in written form.

This intolerance has shown itself using various methods throughout history. At times it has been on a smaller scale manifesting through individual social interactions such as violence toward interracial couples or individuals. While at other times in history, it has even been present in our legal system as illustrated by anti-miscegenation laws (statutes banning interracial marriage and even intercourse between members of different races).

In fact, dating back as early as 1661, many states had laws prohibiting miscegenation. This was a very common practice until 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia’s miscegenation laws were unconstitutional in response to the issues raised by Loving v. Virginia.

Although the majority of those laws have since been repealed and the rest are typically no longer enforced, there is still a lingering miscegenation intolerance throughout America. Further compounding this problem is the fact that the American legal system still consistently fails to acknowledge racism directed toward those viewed as being racially mixed.

The American legal system needs to take off their blinders and realize that the familiar set of racial categories on which race discrimination jurisprudence was originally based is no longer relevant. Only then can they respond by expanding the definitions of racial discrimination to more completely protect everyone affected.