Hear ye, Hear ye!!! We now begin deliberations for the trial of the Knowmo2724

[Pasta Little Brioni]

He is charged with 1st degree welching. A 2nd degree charge of homering is dropped.

To those bitching about a possible early return: A plea deal was offered by PM when we made the bet (plus CP needs burst). We shall start the deliberations today and once I have heard enough, a poll of CP will be started to determine Knowmo's fate. A guilty verdict and he will be forced to sit out until the year is fully up on bet and I own his username in the process (penalty for welching). Need a friendly mod to deliver the ban hammer. Not guilty and he will be reinstated immediately to homer up CP without any welching accusations or penalties whatsoever.

The rub is Knowmo MAY post in this thread, but any Bronco talk/homerism by him and it will be contempt of court rendering an automatic GUILTY verdict.


Prosecutors: BossChief, SNR, Sorter
Court Appointed DAs: rico, Sweet Daddy Hate


UPDATE:

After violating his probation with yet another welch...He has been found GUILTY!!!

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by BossChief

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]

Originally Posted by PGM

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]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

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]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

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.

Originally Posted by PGM

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]

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate

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]

Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate

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]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

http://www.moulinos.com/legal-update...gally-binding/

Suck it, dickface.

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...

A second option would be to make the contract a web form and once signed email a PDF copy to both parties

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]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

http://www.moulinos.com/legal-update...gally-binding/

Suck it, dickface.

Have some more:

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]

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]

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]

We need to knowmo to show for burst

[J Diddy]

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]

Originally Posted by BossChief

What electronic agreement isn't binding in a court of law?

Any made here for starters

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate

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.