Hrafnkel's Argument Against The Law In Ireland

The killing of EInar in the 10th century Icelandic culture was considered legal since oral oath was viewed, as been a binding contract that had to be respected by the concerned parties. Hrafnkel mentions that Einar is “free to use any of ten or twelve other horses, whether you like, by day or night” (40). Einar agrees to the terms when he says that “he would never be so wicked as to ride the one horse which was forbidden to him” (40). This can be seen as an oral contract between Hrafnkel and Einar which would be considering binding. So, if Einar could not keep his promise with Hrafnkel to not ride his beloved horse, Hrafnkel would kill him by violating the agreement. Hrafnkel also adds by saying “Warning wards off all blame” meaning that because the …show more content…
Moreover, as chieftain, it is Hrafnkel’s duty to uphold the law and he must set an example for all others. In today’s society we use written contracts rather than verbal contracts and if the contract were to be broken in any way then no matter the circumstance, the guilty party would be the one that breached the contract first So, from an objective standpoint it’s reasonable to say that Hrafnkel is not guilty of murder because he gave Einar a fair warning, to which he agreed and acknowledge, of the circumstances and the sacred oath to which he made to his patron god Feye. Even though one might contend that it was not clear to Einar that he should not ride the horse, the story is very clear that when Einar was interviewed for the job, he did not refuse or question about the contract. From that perspective, it can be said that it is clear that Einar understood the terms and conditions of his employment as well as the consequences that might follow in the unfortunate even and that the terms and conditions were not adhered to as