In the writ just served on Quotes, one item seems to stand out.
If they claim that as a baptized Dub, when he left he was in breach by quoting their literature, does this tell us that the new baptism vows mean that the candidate has entered into a contract in association with the organization? After all contractual partners in business are referred to as "associates"
If this is the case the legal ramifications are interesting.
If someone is baptized as a minor, this means that the "contract" is not legal, as minors cannot enter into contracts.
Under the Law, minors cannot donate gifts, whether money, cars or computers.
They can therefore demand the return of all monies and properties gifted under the illegal contractual association with WTS.
Does this also mean that anyone baptized under the new contractual implications of JW baptism vows - as a minor - can also legally insist that a DF be cancelled, as the baptism is an illegal contract, (therefore invalid), and only those with valid baptismal contracts can be DF.
The WT may claim that baptism is simply a religious symbol, but if that were true, why don't they use the formula given by Christ? No: the "IN ASSOCIATION" attempts to inveigle the victim into an implied contractual association with the WT which can then be used against him at the WTs convenience, as is the case with Quotes.
Unfortunately I was baptized under the old wording of the vows.
HB (of the "I can'ts gets me monies back" class)