ChiefsPlanet
Page 11 of 13 « First 78910 11 1213
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Poop Hear ye, Hear ye!!! We now begin deliberations for the trial of the Knowmo2724 (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=274215)

Pasta Little Brioni 07-02-2013 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 9788421)
I did this for the guy a couple years ago (to keep him from a permaban as result of a lost agreement between he and I) and he welched on that agreement by taking the sig avatar down early.

I'm not sure what good the plea bargain would be...IMO it would need to be username and something else creative added that he can't control in his settings.
Jeez, what a dick move.

crazycoffey 07-02-2013 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PGM (Post 9787799)
I would like to see some evidence of welching of prior bets.
Search through gocheifs posts, you'll find a lot of bet welching....

Pasta Little Brioni 07-02-2013 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycoffey (Post 9788574)
Search through gocheifs posts, you'll find a lot of bet welching....
I don't give a **** about what he did on the Minge.

Sweet Daddy Hate 07-02-2013 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneWolf (Post 9788258)
While Rico is correct that welching isn't a bannable offense, Knowmo did enter into a written agreement with PGM. That agreement would hold up in any court of law outside of CP so why would it not be enforceable within the confines of CP? I say make him live up to his end of the deal. If for nothing else than to teach him what it means to be a person of character.
Since when do posts made in the electronic ether constitute a "written agreement" between two parties? This may be the electronic age, but "e-intent" is not binding in a court of law. Produce parchment, or your claim is invalid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PGM (Post 9788383)
Probably not. Would need to be a stiffer punishment for an early return. I have the vote in the bag.
It's time to end this injustice and come to the table. State your restitution demands, please.

salame 07-02-2013 07:54 PM
http://www.fantasysportsgab.com/wp-c...9/MilkDuds.jpg

LoneWolf 07-02-2013 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate (Post 9789070)
Since when do posts made in the electronic ether constitute a "written agreement" between two parties? This may be the electronic age, but "e-intent" is not binding in a court of law. Produce parchment, or your claim is invalid.



It's time to end this injustice and come to the table. State your restitution demands, please.
http://www.moulinos.com/legal-update...gally-binding/

Suck it, dickface.

BossChief 07-02-2013 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate (Post 9789070)
Since when do posts made in the electronic ether constitute a "written agreement" between two parties? This may be the electronic age, but "e-intent" is not binding in a court of law. Produce parchment, or your claim is invalid.



It's time to end this injustice and come to the table. State your restitution demands, please.
What electronic agreement isn't binding in a court of law?

Sweet Daddy Hate 07-02-2013 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneWolf (Post 9789586)
Quote:
If you are in the US, the law that governs this is the US E-Sign Act of 2000. It stipulates that that electronic measures can be deemed a legally binding signature. This can be a text box where they sign their name, a check box, etc...
Quote:
A second option would be to make the contract a web form and once signed email a PDF copy to both parties
Quote:
There have been cases where email has been held up as legally binding, but it seems to be more highly scrutinized than other methods.
Get the **** off my stand, bitch.

Sweet Daddy Hate 07-02-2013 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneWolf (Post 9789586)
Have some more:

Quote:
The purpose of the UETA and the federal ESIGN Act is to authorize the use of electronic records and signatures. In other words, these laws answer the question "is it a signature", but not the question "is it YOUR signature." Most contract disputes are not related to the authenticity of signature or the identity of the contracting parties, and so these laws have great utility for a broad range of electronic contracting transactions, and allow flexibility by permitting the type of electronic signature used to fit the nature of the transaction. But in law, if a signature on a contract or other document is contested, the signature must meet certain tests before a court will uphold it. These requirements vary by jurisdiction, but various sorts of signatures, some entirely electronic Telex addresses (for example, ABC Company sends a Telex to XYZ Company making an offer at a particular price. The offer was held to be binding when the "signature" was challenged.), telegrams (for example, "I ACCEPT, SMITH" even though Smith never actually touched the telegraph key), and faxes of documents, even in some cases where the original was not signed by the sender.
Take it deep. Deeper.

BossChief 07-02-2013 10:08 PM
We are t questioning whether KnowMo was the one that accepted the terms online or not...he has admitted agreeing to the terms. He made a conscious decision to not honor the terms of the agreement.

These are the facts of this case and they are undisputed.

J Diddy 07-02-2013 10:11 PM
This is like part court TV, part Matlock, part Perry Mason, part LA Lawand a huge dog turd all combined in a blender.

However, it does have a nice sprig of parsley on it for garnishment.

Pasta Little Brioni 07-02-2013 10:29 PM
We need to knowmo to show for burst

J Diddy 07-02-2013 10:34 PM
I have to admit at first I got excited when I thought it said we now begin defibrillations.

Alas let down again.

Why does my life suck?

crazycoffey 07-03-2013 12:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 9789734)
What electronic agreement isn't binding in a court of law?
Any made here for starters

LoneWolf 07-03-2013 06:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate (Post 9789793)
Have some more:



Take it deep. Deeper.
Holy ****, SDH. You can't possibly be this stupid and still be living. This entire thread has been tongue-in-cheek, but electronic communications are binding in a court of law. Hell, verbal contracts with no paper trail at all are binding in a court of law. Your posts dealing with e-signatures are ****ing stupid. Nobody suggested that Knowmo entered into a "signed" contract.

I deal with business law and in particular contract law on a regular basis, and believe me communications between parties through email and text are absolutely binding in court.

My original post was meant to be funny and nobody is suggesting that Knowmo's welching should actually be taken to court, but FFS get some education and stop being the dumbest mother****er on this board.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:08 AM.
Page 11 of 13 « First 78910 11 1213
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.