|
United States15065 Posts
On August 05 2011 05:01 wolfe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:59 Rekrul wrote:
Even after he originally stole FD and Tester and everyone kinda just let it go and didn't make a big deal about it for the greater good of the growth of SC2 in Korea, Coach Lee was notorious for doing things like going ape shit bitching about very minuscule things such as how many players/which players can get to sit in the team area during matches, which left other coaches and GomTV staff wondering "what the fuck is wrong with this guy?" Where did you hear that and seriously? 99% of the people here have a favorable impression of him (initially) because of Tastosis, but I'd love to hear other opinions.
You clearly do not know who Rekrul is!
This whole situation depresses me. It sounds like everybody involved has been kind of a jerk.
|
no wonder the tsl coach didnt want to "contract" players. he does crap like this
|
On August 05 2011 05:06 Beerdrinker wrote:
TSL needs to be more sensitive about doing business in korea, they need to be respectful of the culture, their contracts and verbal obligations
Not to beat on a dead horse, but this post was funny.
|
On August 05 2011 05:06 Beerdrinker wrote:
TSL needs to be more sensitive about doing business in korea, they need to be respectful of the culture, their contracts and verbal obligations
Hahaha. This made me smirk like FXOTheBest would
|
On August 05 2011 05:07 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 05:03 PanzerKing wrote:What you know about lawyers could be summed up in a paragraph at most, with a couple of sentences for change. Keep your inane comments to yourself instead of slandering an entire profession. Watching "Lincoln Lawyer" doesn't qualify you to commentate on us. I think you'll be hard pressed to find many people who think lawyers are generally morally upstanding people. Not saying they're correct, just have fun persuading people on this subject.
well lawyers are not there to uphold moral standards.
they are there to interprete the law and explain the legal position of a client to the court or to prevent litigation as a whole by drafting contracts with clear rules
the law contains regulations that have moral aspects in it but the lawyers are not the ones to determine what moral aspects get into the law (thats what politicians do)
for example. if lawyers were involved in this issue the parties wouldnt have to do this kind of a cat fight right now. there would be clear rules what kind of obligations the parties have and what procedure is required to solve dispute.
and if shit breaks loose despite of a lawyer being involved the lawyer could be held responsible too.
|
On August 05 2011 05:07 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 05:01 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:59 Rekrul wrote:
Even after he originally stole FD and Tester and everyone kinda just let it go and didn't make a big deal about it for the greater good of the growth of SC2 in Korea, Coach Lee was notorious for doing things like going ape shit bitching about very minuscule things such as how many players/which players can get to sit in the team area during matches, which left other coaches and GomTV staff wondering "what the fuck is wrong with this guy?" Where did you hear that and seriously? 99% of the people here have a favorable impression of him (initially) because of Tastosis, but I'd love to hear other opinions. You clearly do not know who Rekrul is! This whole situation depresses me. It sounds like everybody involved has been kind of a jerk.
No no no, I'm not questioning/doubting Rekrul just wondering how he heard it. The "seriously" was more a directed surprise towards Coach Lee's past.
|
|
|
On August 05 2011 04:40 farnham wrote:tl555555 you clearly have no knowledge about the legal system in america or in korea. it doesnt really help if you explain your own thoughts about each legal system if you have no actual experience or at least theoretical knowledge about them. its pretty much just your fantasy. also i still want to know why you are bringing up examples of criminal law if this is clearly a case of civil law (although i do see some criminal behavior of mr. lee as fraud or 배임 (disloyalty) Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:38 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:31 farnham wrote:On August 05 2011 04:27 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:22 Chargelot wrote:On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem).
Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. You're on trial for murder. It doesn't matter if you did it or not, but it looks really bad for you. You have an option: The one million dollar a day legal team of the best 8 lawyers in the country or A court appointed lawyer, who costs nothing to you, and has ~30 cases he is working on at the same time. Money means a lot. You realize those same court appointed lawyers are the ones who know the ins and outs of the courthouse, know the judges, know the district attorney, know the assistant district attorneys, and work just as hard as any other attorney because they also take on private clients and probably DONT want the public to feel they are terrible attorneys? Or that they dont want those same courthouses to think that they aren't professional? I'll take on one of the court appointed attorneys here who I know absolutely know this court houses ways, over someone who has no idea how it works and comes off as an asshat (All the out of county Dallas attorneys who dont even know how to file basic processes at the courthouse I'm at). Also, there's a thing called a jury. And just because a lawyer has 30 cases, doesn't mean he isn't taking the time to handle the case he is given. You don't think those same attorneys dont enjoy winning? Come on. yeah i find this hilarious too. i know some defense attorneys and they usually dont want to conclude contracts with criminals because they dont know where the money comes from and they might get in jail themselves if it was for example drug money. getting the money from the state might not be much and might take a long time but it usually is safe and clean money so they rather take that money. clean lawyers? What planet do you live on? im a lawyer myself and i met a lot of honest people that are lawyers that i do respect. shocking i know
"tl555555"? You spelled my name wrong, it's actually tl55555. A person could interpret that you were referring to me or another person with a similarly spelled name. Arguments could be made for both cases, get that through your thick skull.
On August 05 2011 04:42 wolfe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:36 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:17 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:14 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:10 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable.
Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. That's not even remotely true, don't speak on trials and the US legal system on such a blanket statement, when you likely have no idea about what goes on at the court houses. It's not even about legality at this point. Logically you can't stop paying someone their money due unless they are no longer employed. Both players were still employed under the TSL flag. You must live under a rock on the moon, or definitely not in the united states, or you definitely don't pay attention to legal cases. Or I work in a courthouse, talk to attorneys all day, and know for a fact that the higher paid lawyer doesn't always win? Are you serious right now? I'm completely baffled right now and quite frankly I can't put together a statement to express how ignorant the things you are saying in regards to law are. Some small town courthouse where both parties have such little money it doesn't matter. Cause those are the cases that matter in America. Not surprised someone from a small town is "baffled" at what really goes on in the American legal system and can't wrap their head around it. Stick to smallville where things make sense for you. On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:27 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
Not anymore wrong and unethical than what FruitDealer and Trickster did, which was violate their contract by not practicing. Don't flaunt your business law when you have no idea wtf is going on, just makes you look like a pompous arrogant child. Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable. EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. Money gives a huge advantage which goes against a fair trial. Simple point, difficult for you to understand. How does this even relate to the thread again? I'm not going to try to argue with the internet it's pointless really. Back to the thread. TSL/Lee is in the fault for an ambiguous contract. The Players are fulfilling the contract, but still being punished for agreements that lie outside of the contract. edit: Here's a fun idea for you. If you really want to settle this the old school way lets play 1s. The winner is right and the loser is wrong :D. Bo3 you can pick the 1st map.
hmmm... a lawyer challenging me to a game of SC2. You'd probably complain to Blizzard about the TOS if you lost.
On August 05 2011 04:42 Grimsong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:36 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:17 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:14 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:10 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable.
Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. That's not even remotely true, don't speak on trials and the US legal system on such a blanket statement, when you likely have no idea about what goes on at the court houses. It's not even about legality at this point. Logically you can't stop paying someone their money due unless they are no longer employed. Both players were still employed under the TSL flag. You must live under a rock on the moon, or definitely not in the united states, or you definitely don't pay attention to legal cases. Or I work in a courthouse, talk to attorneys all day, and know for a fact that the higher paid lawyer doesn't always win? Are you serious right now? I'm completely baffled right now and quite frankly I can't put together a statement to express how ignorant the things you are saying in regards to law are. Some small town courthouse where both parties have such little money it doesn't matter. Cause those are the cases that matter in America. Not surprised someone from a small town is "baffled" at what really goes on in the American legal system and can't wrap their head around it. Stick to smallville where things make sense for you. On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:27 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
Not anymore wrong and unethical than what FruitDealer and Trickster did, which was violate their contract by not practicing. Don't flaunt your business law when you have no idea wtf is going on, just makes you look like a pompous arrogant child. Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable. EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. Money gives a huge advantage which goes against a fair trial. Simple point, difficult for you to understand. You have no idea what I can or can' t wrap my head around, where I'm from, or where I've been. I'd appreciate if you kept your personal attacks to yourself because it's becoming more and more difficult to stay civil as you continue to say things about me that you simply have no idea about. Money doesn't have anything to do with a fair trial either, because a fair trial involves a jury that is very meticulously selected. You think those million dollar lawyers are getting paid a million dollars simply because they are getting paid a million dollars? They're solid lawyers and have found a platform from which they can demand that type of payment. Who's to say that other "small pay" lawyer simply hasnt found that same opportunity, yet is still just as skilled if not more knowledgable since he has taken on so many cases? PS. Court appointed lawyers also take on private clients. That million dollar lawyer you hired? Likely has court appointed cases.
Sorry, but it's easy to make those assumptions based on what you're written. When you come back to reality let me know.
On August 05 2011 05:03 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:38 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:31 farnham wrote:On August 05 2011 04:27 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:22 Chargelot wrote:On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem).
Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. You're on trial for murder. It doesn't matter if you did it or not, but it looks really bad for you. You have an option: The one million dollar a day legal team of the best 8 lawyers in the country or A court appointed lawyer, who costs nothing to you, and has ~30 cases he is working on at the same time. Money means a lot. You realize those same court appointed lawyers are the ones who know the ins and outs of the courthouse, know the judges, know the district attorney, know the assistant district attorneys, and work just as hard as any other attorney because they also take on private clients and probably DONT want the public to feel they are terrible attorneys? Or that they dont want those same courthouses to think that they aren't professional? I'll take on one of the court appointed attorneys here who I know absolutely know this court houses ways, over someone who has no idea how it works and comes off as an asshat (All the out of county Dallas attorneys who dont even know how to file basic processes at the courthouse I'm at). Also, there's a thing called a jury. And just because a lawyer has 30 cases, doesn't mean he isn't taking the time to handle the case he is given. You don't think those same attorneys dont enjoy winning? Come on. yeah i find this hilarious too. i know some defense attorneys and they usually dont want to conclude contracts with criminals because they dont know where the money comes from and they might get in jail themselves if it was for example drug money. getting the money from the state might not be much and might take a long time but it usually is safe and clean money so they rather take that money. clean lawyers? What planet do you live on? What you know about lawyers could be summed up in a paragraph at most, with a couple of sentences for change. Keep your inane comments to yourself instead of slandering an entire profession. Watching "Lincoln Lawyer" doesn't qualify you to commentate on us.
I thought it was a pretty good movie.
edit: 4v1 how many more lawyers want a piece? i'll take ya'll on
|
Coach Lee's a douchebag? Who knew?
|
On August 05 2011 05:14 tl55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:40 farnham wrote:tl555555 you clearly have no knowledge about the legal system in america or in korea. it doesnt really help if you explain your own thoughts about each legal system if you have no actual experience or at least theoretical knowledge about them. its pretty much just your fantasy. also i still want to know why you are bringing up examples of criminal law if this is clearly a case of civil law (although i do see some criminal behavior of mr. lee as fraud or 배임 (disloyalty) On August 05 2011 04:38 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:31 farnham wrote:On August 05 2011 04:27 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:22 Chargelot wrote:On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed
I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins.
Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes.
How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. You're on trial for murder. It doesn't matter if you did it or not, but it looks really bad for you. You have an option: The one million dollar a day legal team of the best 8 lawyers in the country or A court appointed lawyer, who costs nothing to you, and has ~30 cases he is working on at the same time. Money means a lot. You realize those same court appointed lawyers are the ones who know the ins and outs of the courthouse, know the judges, know the district attorney, know the assistant district attorneys, and work just as hard as any other attorney because they also take on private clients and probably DONT want the public to feel they are terrible attorneys? Or that they dont want those same courthouses to think that they aren't professional? I'll take on one of the court appointed attorneys here who I know absolutely know this court houses ways, over someone who has no idea how it works and comes off as an asshat (All the out of county Dallas attorneys who dont even know how to file basic processes at the courthouse I'm at). Also, there's a thing called a jury. And just because a lawyer has 30 cases, doesn't mean he isn't taking the time to handle the case he is given. You don't think those same attorneys dont enjoy winning? Come on. yeah i find this hilarious too. i know some defense attorneys and they usually dont want to conclude contracts with criminals because they dont know where the money comes from and they might get in jail themselves if it was for example drug money. getting the money from the state might not be much and might take a long time but it usually is safe and clean money so they rather take that money. clean lawyers? What planet do you live on? im a lawyer myself and i met a lot of honest people that are lawyers that i do respect. shocking i know "tl555555"? You spelled my name wrong, it's actually tl55555. A person could interpret that you were referring to me or another person with a similarly spelled name. Arguments could be made for both cases, get that through your thick skull. Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:42 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:36 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:17 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:14 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:10 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem).
Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. That's not even remotely true, don't speak on trials and the US legal system on such a blanket statement, when you likely have no idea about what goes on at the court houses. It's not even about legality at this point. Logically you can't stop paying someone their money due unless they are no longer employed. Both players were still employed under the TSL flag. You must live under a rock on the moon, or definitely not in the united states, or you definitely don't pay attention to legal cases. Or I work in a courthouse, talk to attorneys all day, and know for a fact that the higher paid lawyer doesn't always win? Are you serious right now? I'm completely baffled right now and quite frankly I can't put together a statement to express how ignorant the things you are saying in regards to law are. Some small town courthouse where both parties have such little money it doesn't matter. Cause those are the cases that matter in America. Not surprised someone from a small town is "baffled" at what really goes on in the American legal system and can't wrap their head around it. Stick to smallville where things make sense for you. On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable.
EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. Money gives a huge advantage which goes against a fair trial. Simple point, difficult for you to understand. How does this even relate to the thread again? I'm not going to try to argue with the internet it's pointless really. Back to the thread. TSL/Lee is in the fault for an ambiguous contract. The Players are fulfilling the contract, but still being punished for agreements that lie outside of the contract. edit: Here's a fun idea for you. If you really want to settle this the old school way lets play 1s. The winner is right and the loser is wrong :D. Bo3 you can pick the 1st map. hmmm... a lawyer challenging me to a game of SC2. You'd probably complain to Blizzard about the TOS if you lost. Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:42 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:36 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:17 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:14 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:10 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem).
Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. That's not even remotely true, don't speak on trials and the US legal system on such a blanket statement, when you likely have no idea about what goes on at the court houses. It's not even about legality at this point. Logically you can't stop paying someone their money due unless they are no longer employed. Both players were still employed under the TSL flag. You must live under a rock on the moon, or definitely not in the united states, or you definitely don't pay attention to legal cases. Or I work in a courthouse, talk to attorneys all day, and know for a fact that the higher paid lawyer doesn't always win? Are you serious right now? I'm completely baffled right now and quite frankly I can't put together a statement to express how ignorant the things you are saying in regards to law are. Some small town courthouse where both parties have such little money it doesn't matter. Cause those are the cases that matter in America. Not surprised someone from a small town is "baffled" at what really goes on in the American legal system and can't wrap their head around it. Stick to smallville where things make sense for you. On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable.
EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. Money gives a huge advantage which goes against a fair trial. Simple point, difficult for you to understand. You have no idea what I can or can' t wrap my head around, where I'm from, or where I've been. I'd appreciate if you kept your personal attacks to yourself because it's becoming more and more difficult to stay civil as you continue to say things about me that you simply have no idea about. Money doesn't have anything to do with a fair trial either, because a fair trial involves a jury that is very meticulously selected. You think those million dollar lawyers are getting paid a million dollars simply because they are getting paid a million dollars? They're solid lawyers and have found a platform from which they can demand that type of payment. Who's to say that other "small pay" lawyer simply hasnt found that same opportunity, yet is still just as skilled if not more knowledgable since he has taken on so many cases? PS. Court appointed lawyers also take on private clients. That million dollar lawyer you hired? Likely has court appointed cases. Sorry, but it's easy to make those assumptions based on what you're written. When you come back to reality let me know. Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 05:03 PanzerKing wrote:On August 05 2011 04:38 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:31 farnham wrote:On August 05 2011 04:27 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:22 Chargelot wrote:On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed
I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins.
Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes.
How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. You're on trial for murder. It doesn't matter if you did it or not, but it looks really bad for you. You have an option: The one million dollar a day legal team of the best 8 lawyers in the country or A court appointed lawyer, who costs nothing to you, and has ~30 cases he is working on at the same time. Money means a lot. You realize those same court appointed lawyers are the ones who know the ins and outs of the courthouse, know the judges, know the district attorney, know the assistant district attorneys, and work just as hard as any other attorney because they also take on private clients and probably DONT want the public to feel they are terrible attorneys? Or that they dont want those same courthouses to think that they aren't professional? I'll take on one of the court appointed attorneys here who I know absolutely know this court houses ways, over someone who has no idea how it works and comes off as an asshat (All the out of county Dallas attorneys who dont even know how to file basic processes at the courthouse I'm at). Also, there's a thing called a jury. And just because a lawyer has 30 cases, doesn't mean he isn't taking the time to handle the case he is given. You don't think those same attorneys dont enjoy winning? Come on. yeah i find this hilarious too. i know some defense attorneys and they usually dont want to conclude contracts with criminals because they dont know where the money comes from and they might get in jail themselves if it was for example drug money. getting the money from the state might not be much and might take a long time but it usually is safe and clean money so they rather take that money. clean lawyers? What planet do you live on? What you know about lawyers could be summed up in a paragraph at most, with a couple of sentences for change. Keep your inane comments to yourself instead of slandering an entire profession. Watching "Lincoln Lawyer" doesn't qualify you to commentate on us. I thought it was a pretty good movie. edit: 4v1 how many more lawyers want a piece? i'll take ya'll on
i expected more from you after waiting for so long for your response
|
On August 05 2011 05:14 tl55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:40 farnham wrote:tl555555 you clearly have no knowledge about the legal system in america or in korea. it doesnt really help if you explain your own thoughts about each legal system if you have no actual experience or at least theoretical knowledge about them. its pretty much just your fantasy. also i still want to know why you are bringing up examples of criminal law if this is clearly a case of civil law (although i do see some criminal behavior of mr. lee as fraud or 배임 (disloyalty) On August 05 2011 04:38 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:31 farnham wrote:On August 05 2011 04:27 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:22 Chargelot wrote:On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed
I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins.
Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes.
How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. You're on trial for murder. It doesn't matter if you did it or not, but it looks really bad for you. You have an option: The one million dollar a day legal team of the best 8 lawyers in the country or A court appointed lawyer, who costs nothing to you, and has ~30 cases he is working on at the same time. Money means a lot. You realize those same court appointed lawyers are the ones who know the ins and outs of the courthouse, know the judges, know the district attorney, know the assistant district attorneys, and work just as hard as any other attorney because they also take on private clients and probably DONT want the public to feel they are terrible attorneys? Or that they dont want those same courthouses to think that they aren't professional? I'll take on one of the court appointed attorneys here who I know absolutely know this court houses ways, over someone who has no idea how it works and comes off as an asshat (All the out of county Dallas attorneys who dont even know how to file basic processes at the courthouse I'm at). Also, there's a thing called a jury. And just because a lawyer has 30 cases, doesn't mean he isn't taking the time to handle the case he is given. You don't think those same attorneys dont enjoy winning? Come on. yeah i find this hilarious too. i know some defense attorneys and they usually dont want to conclude contracts with criminals because they dont know where the money comes from and they might get in jail themselves if it was for example drug money. getting the money from the state might not be much and might take a long time but it usually is safe and clean money so they rather take that money. clean lawyers? What planet do you live on? im a lawyer myself and i met a lot of honest people that are lawyers that i do respect. shocking i know "tl555555"? You spelled my name wrong, it's actually tl55555. A person could interpret that you were referring to me or another person with a similarly spelled name. Arguments could be made for both cases, get that through your thick skull. Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:42 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:36 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:17 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:14 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:10 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem).
Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. That's not even remotely true, don't speak on trials and the US legal system on such a blanket statement, when you likely have no idea about what goes on at the court houses. It's not even about legality at this point. Logically you can't stop paying someone their money due unless they are no longer employed. Both players were still employed under the TSL flag. You must live under a rock on the moon, or definitely not in the united states, or you definitely don't pay attention to legal cases. Or I work in a courthouse, talk to attorneys all day, and know for a fact that the higher paid lawyer doesn't always win? Are you serious right now? I'm completely baffled right now and quite frankly I can't put together a statement to express how ignorant the things you are saying in regards to law are. Some small town courthouse where both parties have such little money it doesn't matter. Cause those are the cases that matter in America. Not surprised someone from a small town is "baffled" at what really goes on in the American legal system and can't wrap their head around it. Stick to smallville where things make sense for you. On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable.
EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. Money gives a huge advantage which goes against a fair trial. Simple point, difficult for you to understand. How does this even relate to the thread again? I'm not going to try to argue with the internet it's pointless really. Back to the thread. TSL/Lee is in the fault for an ambiguous contract. The Players are fulfilling the contract, but still being punished for agreements that lie outside of the contract. edit: Here's a fun idea for you. If you really want to settle this the old school way lets play 1s. The winner is right and the loser is wrong :D. Bo3 you can pick the 1st map. hmmm... a lawyer challenging me to a game of SC2. You'd probably complain to Blizzard about the TOS if you lost. Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:42 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:36 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:17 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:14 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:10 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem).
Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. That's not even remotely true, don't speak on trials and the US legal system on such a blanket statement, when you likely have no idea about what goes on at the court houses. It's not even about legality at this point. Logically you can't stop paying someone their money due unless they are no longer employed. Both players were still employed under the TSL flag. You must live under a rock on the moon, or definitely not in the united states, or you definitely don't pay attention to legal cases. Or I work in a courthouse, talk to attorneys all day, and know for a fact that the higher paid lawyer doesn't always win? Are you serious right now? I'm completely baffled right now and quite frankly I can't put together a statement to express how ignorant the things you are saying in regards to law are. Some small town courthouse where both parties have such little money it doesn't matter. Cause those are the cases that matter in America. Not surprised someone from a small town is "baffled" at what really goes on in the American legal system and can't wrap their head around it. Stick to smallville where things make sense for you. On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable.
EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. Money gives a huge advantage which goes against a fair trial. Simple point, difficult for you to understand. You have no idea what I can or can' t wrap my head around, where I'm from, or where I've been. I'd appreciate if you kept your personal attacks to yourself because it's becoming more and more difficult to stay civil as you continue to say things about me that you simply have no idea about. Money doesn't have anything to do with a fair trial either, because a fair trial involves a jury that is very meticulously selected. You think those million dollar lawyers are getting paid a million dollars simply because they are getting paid a million dollars? They're solid lawyers and have found a platform from which they can demand that type of payment. Who's to say that other "small pay" lawyer simply hasnt found that same opportunity, yet is still just as skilled if not more knowledgable since he has taken on so many cases? PS. Court appointed lawyers also take on private clients. That million dollar lawyer you hired? Likely has court appointed cases. Sorry, but it's easy to make those assumptions based on what you're written. When you come back to reality let me know. Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 05:03 PanzerKing wrote:On August 05 2011 04:38 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:31 farnham wrote:On August 05 2011 04:27 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:22 Chargelot wrote:On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed
I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins.
Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes.
How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. You're on trial for murder. It doesn't matter if you did it or not, but it looks really bad for you. You have an option: The one million dollar a day legal team of the best 8 lawyers in the country or A court appointed lawyer, who costs nothing to you, and has ~30 cases he is working on at the same time. Money means a lot. You realize those same court appointed lawyers are the ones who know the ins and outs of the courthouse, know the judges, know the district attorney, know the assistant district attorneys, and work just as hard as any other attorney because they also take on private clients and probably DONT want the public to feel they are terrible attorneys? Or that they dont want those same courthouses to think that they aren't professional? I'll take on one of the court appointed attorneys here who I know absolutely know this court houses ways, over someone who has no idea how it works and comes off as an asshat (All the out of county Dallas attorneys who dont even know how to file basic processes at the courthouse I'm at). Also, there's a thing called a jury. And just because a lawyer has 30 cases, doesn't mean he isn't taking the time to handle the case he is given. You don't think those same attorneys dont enjoy winning? Come on. yeah i find this hilarious too. i know some defense attorneys and they usually dont want to conclude contracts with criminals because they dont know where the money comes from and they might get in jail themselves if it was for example drug money. getting the money from the state might not be much and might take a long time but it usually is safe and clean money so they rather take that money. clean lawyers? What planet do you live on? What you know about lawyers could be summed up in a paragraph at most, with a couple of sentences for change. Keep your inane comments to yourself instead of slandering an entire profession. Watching "Lincoln Lawyer" doesn't qualify you to commentate on us. I thought it was a pretty good movie. edit: 4v1 how many more lawyers want a piece? i'll take ya'll on
What are you doing? Stirring shit up on your crusade against lawyers? Who are you fighting for? Morons? The common man? Get a grip and talk about the damn thread or don't post in it.
edit: Did I see a dodge there?
edit: Almost half your post count contribution to TL has been bashing lawyers...
|
Why the hell is this thread about lawyers now instead of talking about Mr. Lee and FD/Trickster
|
So... Anyone still think the EG-Puma thing was all EG's fault?
Because I think this is some pretty significant proof that TSL's coach can be an irrational guy at times.
|
On August 05 2011 05:06 Beerdrinker wrote:
TSL needs to be more sensitive about doing business in korea, they need to be respectful of the culture, their contracts and verbal obligations
win
not that I think that EG didn't take advantage of a situation but frankly, thats kinda how you win.
and guys, some lawyer are good, some are scum, most are just regular people with law degrees, stay on topic lol
|
Hmm seems coach Lee has a habit of reporting falsehoods and mistreating players in general first triskster/fruitdealer than puma. not suprised to learn of this but seems like certain people owe EG an apolegy. not that i think thats' likely at all.
|
On August 05 2011 05:19 TheDougler wrote:
So... Anyone still think the EG-Puma thing was all EG's fault?
Because I think this is some pretty significant proof that TSL's coach can be an irrational guy at times.
this doesnt change shit.
as you ought to remember everything happened before he even knew about it.
|
This crazy ass new wow poor TSL
|
On August 05 2011 05:17 wolfe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 05:14 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:40 farnham wrote:tl555555 you clearly have no knowledge about the legal system in america or in korea. it doesnt really help if you explain your own thoughts about each legal system if you have no actual experience or at least theoretical knowledge about them. its pretty much just your fantasy. also i still want to know why you are bringing up examples of criminal law if this is clearly a case of civil law (although i do see some criminal behavior of mr. lee as fraud or 배임 (disloyalty) On August 05 2011 04:38 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:31 farnham wrote:On August 05 2011 04:27 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:22 Chargelot wrote:On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:
[quote]
How is that wrong or difficult to understand?
"A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. You're on trial for murder. It doesn't matter if you did it or not, but it looks really bad for you. You have an option: The one million dollar a day legal team of the best 8 lawyers in the country or A court appointed lawyer, who costs nothing to you, and has ~30 cases he is working on at the same time. Money means a lot. You realize those same court appointed lawyers are the ones who know the ins and outs of the courthouse, know the judges, know the district attorney, know the assistant district attorneys, and work just as hard as any other attorney because they also take on private clients and probably DONT want the public to feel they are terrible attorneys? Or that they dont want those same courthouses to think that they aren't professional? I'll take on one of the court appointed attorneys here who I know absolutely know this court houses ways, over someone who has no idea how it works and comes off as an asshat (All the out of county Dallas attorneys who dont even know how to file basic processes at the courthouse I'm at). Also, there's a thing called a jury. And just because a lawyer has 30 cases, doesn't mean he isn't taking the time to handle the case he is given. You don't think those same attorneys dont enjoy winning? Come on. yeah i find this hilarious too. i know some defense attorneys and they usually dont want to conclude contracts with criminals because they dont know where the money comes from and they might get in jail themselves if it was for example drug money. getting the money from the state might not be much and might take a long time but it usually is safe and clean money so they rather take that money. clean lawyers? What planet do you live on? im a lawyer myself and i met a lot of honest people that are lawyers that i do respect. shocking i know "tl555555"? You spelled my name wrong, it's actually tl55555. A person could interpret that you were referring to me or another person with a similarly spelled name. Arguments could be made for both cases, get that through your thick skull. On August 05 2011 04:42 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:36 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:17 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:14 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:10 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed
I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins.
Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes.
How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. That's not even remotely true, don't speak on trials and the US legal system on such a blanket statement, when you likely have no idea about what goes on at the court houses. It's not even about legality at this point. Logically you can't stop paying someone their money due unless they are no longer employed. Both players were still employed under the TSL flag. You must live under a rock on the moon, or definitely not in the united states, or you definitely don't pay attention to legal cases. Or I work in a courthouse, talk to attorneys all day, and know for a fact that the higher paid lawyer doesn't always win? Are you serious right now? I'm completely baffled right now and quite frankly I can't put together a statement to express how ignorant the things you are saying in regards to law are. Some small town courthouse where both parties have such little money it doesn't matter. Cause those are the cases that matter in America. Not surprised someone from a small town is "baffled" at what really goes on in the American legal system and can't wrap their head around it. Stick to smallville where things make sense for you. On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable.
Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. Money gives a huge advantage which goes against a fair trial. Simple point, difficult for you to understand. How does this even relate to the thread again? I'm not going to try to argue with the internet it's pointless really. Back to the thread. TSL/Lee is in the fault for an ambiguous contract. The Players are fulfilling the contract, but still being punished for agreements that lie outside of the contract. edit: Here's a fun idea for you. If you really want to settle this the old school way lets play 1s. The winner is right and the loser is wrong :D. Bo3 you can pick the 1st map. hmmm... a lawyer challenging me to a game of SC2. You'd probably complain to Blizzard about the TOS if you lost. On August 05 2011 04:42 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:36 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:17 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:14 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:10 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed
I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins.
Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes.
How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. That's not even remotely true, don't speak on trials and the US legal system on such a blanket statement, when you likely have no idea about what goes on at the court houses. It's not even about legality at this point. Logically you can't stop paying someone their money due unless they are no longer employed. Both players were still employed under the TSL flag. You must live under a rock on the moon, or definitely not in the united states, or you definitely don't pay attention to legal cases. Or I work in a courthouse, talk to attorneys all day, and know for a fact that the higher paid lawyer doesn't always win? Are you serious right now? I'm completely baffled right now and quite frankly I can't put together a statement to express how ignorant the things you are saying in regards to law are. Some small town courthouse where both parties have such little money it doesn't matter. Cause those are the cases that matter in America. Not surprised someone from a small town is "baffled" at what really goes on in the American legal system and can't wrap their head around it. Stick to smallville where things make sense for you. On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable.
Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. Money gives a huge advantage which goes against a fair trial. Simple point, difficult for you to understand. You have no idea what I can or can' t wrap my head around, where I'm from, or where I've been. I'd appreciate if you kept your personal attacks to yourself because it's becoming more and more difficult to stay civil as you continue to say things about me that you simply have no idea about. Money doesn't have anything to do with a fair trial either, because a fair trial involves a jury that is very meticulously selected. You think those million dollar lawyers are getting paid a million dollars simply because they are getting paid a million dollars? They're solid lawyers and have found a platform from which they can demand that type of payment. Who's to say that other "small pay" lawyer simply hasnt found that same opportunity, yet is still just as skilled if not more knowledgable since he has taken on so many cases? PS. Court appointed lawyers also take on private clients. That million dollar lawyer you hired? Likely has court appointed cases. Sorry, but it's easy to make those assumptions based on what you're written. When you come back to reality let me know. On August 05 2011 05:03 PanzerKing wrote:On August 05 2011 04:38 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:31 farnham wrote:On August 05 2011 04:27 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 04:22 Chargelot wrote:On August 05 2011 04:18 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:
[quote]
How is that wrong or difficult to understand?
"A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins. Korea has more or less the same contract laws as the US and I was only using that as reference. Ironically, you contradict yourself with your 2nd and 3rd sentences a feat that is quite impressive given you have only written three sentences. Fair trial =/= more money, better lawyer, wins Not only are you a cynical person who seems to have no respect for our legal systems you also are quite poor at doing research. Give me a single example in which the courts ruled in favor of the author of an ambiguous contract. Side note, the more money argument doesn't really have that much to do with better lawyers it has more to do with that a protracted legal battle can last years costing upwards of millions of dollars. The party with the smaller bank is more likely to withdraw and settle rather than waste years in court. You're on trial for murder. It doesn't matter if you did it or not, but it looks really bad for you. You have an option: The one million dollar a day legal team of the best 8 lawyers in the country or A court appointed lawyer, who costs nothing to you, and has ~30 cases he is working on at the same time. Money means a lot. You realize those same court appointed lawyers are the ones who know the ins and outs of the courthouse, know the judges, know the district attorney, know the assistant district attorneys, and work just as hard as any other attorney because they also take on private clients and probably DONT want the public to feel they are terrible attorneys? Or that they dont want those same courthouses to think that they aren't professional? I'll take on one of the court appointed attorneys here who I know absolutely know this court houses ways, over someone who has no idea how it works and comes off as an asshat (All the out of county Dallas attorneys who dont even know how to file basic processes at the courthouse I'm at). Also, there's a thing called a jury. And just because a lawyer has 30 cases, doesn't mean he isn't taking the time to handle the case he is given. You don't think those same attorneys dont enjoy winning? Come on. yeah i find this hilarious too. i know some defense attorneys and they usually dont want to conclude contracts with criminals because they dont know where the money comes from and they might get in jail themselves if it was for example drug money. getting the money from the state might not be much and might take a long time but it usually is safe and clean money so they rather take that money. clean lawyers? What planet do you live on? What you know about lawyers could be summed up in a paragraph at most, with a couple of sentences for change. Keep your inane comments to yourself instead of slandering an entire profession. Watching "Lincoln Lawyer" doesn't qualify you to commentate on us. I thought it was a pretty good movie. edit: 4v1 how many more lawyers want a piece? i'll take ya'll on What are you doing? Stirring shit up on your crusade against lawyers? Who are you fighting for? Morons? The common man? Get a grip and talk about the damn thread or don't post in it. edit: Did I see a dodge there? edit: Almost half your post count contribution to TL has been bashing lawyers...
funny thing is that no lawyer has been involved in this case.
|
On August 05 2011 04:59 Rekrul wrote:
Even after he originally stole FD and Tester and everyone kinda just let it go and didn't make a big deal about it for the greater good of the growth of SC2 in Korea, Coach Lee was notorious for doing things like going ape shit bitching about very minuscule things such as how many players/which players can get to sit in the team area during matches, which left other coaches and GomTV staff wondering "what the fuck is wrong with this guy?"
I thought FD and T left oGs on their own?
|
On August 05 2011 04:59 Rekrul wrote:
Even after he originally stole FD and Tester and everyone kinda just let it go and didn't make a big deal about it for the greater good of the growth of SC2 in Korea, Coach Lee was notorious for doing things like going ape shit bitching about very minuscule things such as how many players/which players can get to sit in the team area during matches, which left other coaches and GomTV staff wondering "what the fuck is wrong with this guy?"
Wait, are you talking about FD and Tester from oGs to TSL? I was under the impression that they formed TSL after they left oGs. Tester himself says that FD and he left oGs because they wanted a more free practice regimen than what oGs was starting to organize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
