|
|
On September 21 2011 00:22 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 00:16 Ylrahc wrote:On September 21 2011 00:04 Ryder. wrote:On September 21 2011 00:01 Merlimoo wrote:
Not the mention that he has previously said to Millenium that he will stay with them.
Even in the US, an oral contract, is a contract. So the Millenium one was beforehand and a work contract is not valid if the employee is already under contract. Case closed. Saying you will stay with them does not make it a contract :/ you need an intention to be legally bound, sufficient agreement on all important terms (consensus) and consideration (both parties need to gain something out of it). Please stop spamming this thread with nonsense :/ It's actually the one sensible thing he said : Stephano and M had an oral agreement about Stephano signing in the short future an employment contract with M, whose terms were already fixed. This might very well be enough to render coL contract void under any law, french or US one (even if I doubt it, but as we know, opinion != fact). So M didn't do anything wrong apart from fueling some internet flame (and coL didn't do anything wrong either, only part at fault is Stephano) As far as I know that wouldn't hold; 'signing in the short future' is too vague, for a contract to exist you need to agree on all important details such as the time, what is to be provided, how they are to be paid ect. Just by talking about forming a contract doesn't form one, and I'm 99% sure that it doesn't prevent you from forming other contracts. The guy who said he should have just asked coL to be released has a really good point lol. Due to the nature of his contract there is hardly an incentive for coL to keep him there against his will, considering that coL hadn't really invested much into it yet. But just walking away was a bad idea IMO
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5562377_verbal-agreement-legally-binding.html
Every contract is invalid if another one is already in place. The contractor should certified that is not the case usually.
|
On September 21 2011 00:19 Sandermatt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 00:16 Ylrahc wrote:On September 21 2011 00:04 Ryder. wrote:On September 21 2011 00:01 Merlimoo wrote:
Not the mention that he has previously said to Millenium that he will stay with them.
Even in the US, an oral contract, is a contract. So the Millenium one was beforehand and a work contract is not valid if the employee is already under contract. Case closed. Saying you will stay with them does not make it a contract :/ you need an intention to be legally bound, sufficient agreement on all important terms (consensus) and consideration (both parties need to gain something out of it). Please stop spamming this thread with nonsense :/ It's actually the one sensible thing he said : Stephano and M had an oral agreement about Stephano signing in the short future an employment contract with M, whose terms were already fixed. This might very well be enough to render coL contract void under any law, french or US one (even if I doubt it, but as we know, opinion != fact). So M didn't do anything wrong apart from fueling some internet flame (and coL didn't do anything wrong either, only part at fault is Stephano) In the case stephano already had a valid agreement with mill, before signing with col. Then col would not have to sue mill, but stephano himself.
Pretty much, yes. However, one could argue Stephano is 18 yo, rather young and maybe a bit immature, under a lot of pressure, and that it is out of proportion in this case to sue him in court. This is why I hope both teams will come to an agreement regarding this case. I think the e-drama and the loss of reputation will be a good enough punishment for Stephano anyway. He deserves a second chance, he is a very skilled young player that can maybe compete on an equal level with top korean gamers, and everybody here wants to see that, I hope 
As far as I know that wouldn't hold; 'signing in the short future' is too vague, for a contract to exist you need to agree on all important details such as the time, what is to be provided, how they are to be paid ect. Just by talking about forming a contract doesn't form one, and I'm 99% sure that it doesn't prevent you from forming other contracts.
Actually, if you read me carefully, you would understand all terms of the contract were fixed (salary, what is expected from the player, etc). The only thing missing was the signature of the player.
|
On September 21 2011 00:25 Merlimoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 00:22 Ryder. wrote:On September 21 2011 00:16 Ylrahc wrote:On September 21 2011 00:04 Ryder. wrote:On September 21 2011 00:01 Merlimoo wrote:
Not the mention that he has previously said to Millenium that he will stay with them.
Even in the US, an oral contract, is a contract. So the Millenium one was beforehand and a work contract is not valid if the employee is already under contract. Case closed. Saying you will stay with them does not make it a contract :/ you need an intention to be legally bound, sufficient agreement on all important terms (consensus) and consideration (both parties need to gain something out of it). Please stop spamming this thread with nonsense :/ It's actually the one sensible thing he said : Stephano and M had an oral agreement about Stephano signing in the short future an employment contract with M, whose terms were already fixed. This might very well be enough to render coL contract void under any law, french or US one (even if I doubt it, but as we know, opinion != fact). So M didn't do anything wrong apart from fueling some internet flame (and coL didn't do anything wrong either, only part at fault is Stephano) As far as I know that wouldn't hold; 'signing in the short future' is too vague, for a contract to exist you need to agree on all important details such as the time, what is to be provided, how they are to be paid ect. Just by talking about forming a contract doesn't form one, and I'm 99% sure that it doesn't prevent you from forming other contracts. The guy who said he should have just asked coL to be released has a really good point lol. Due to the nature of his contract there is hardly an incentive for coL to keep him there against his will, considering that coL hadn't really invested much into it yet. But just walking away was a bad idea IMO http://www.ehow.com/facts_5562377_verbal-agreement-legally-binding.htmlEvery contract is invalid if another one is already in place. The contractor should certified that is not the case usually.
Sorry, but where is the evidence that he was actually already in a contract with [M]? As far as I know there is no evidence to suggest this, and nobody is actually trying to argue this.
|
On September 21 2011 00:16 Ylrahc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 00:04 Ryder. wrote:On September 21 2011 00:01 Merlimoo wrote:
Not the mention that he has previously said to Millenium that he will stay with them.
Even in the US, an oral contract, is a contract. So the Millenium one was beforehand and a work contract is not valid if the employee is already under contract. Case closed. Saying you will stay with them does not make it a contract :/ you need an intention to be legally bound, sufficient agreement on all important terms (consensus) and consideration (both parties need to gain something out of it). Please stop spamming this thread with nonsense :/ It's actually the one sensible thing he said : Stephano and M had an oral agreement about Stephano signing in the short future an employment contract with M, whose terms were already fixed. This might very well be enough to render coL contract void under any law, french or US one (even if I doubt it, but as we know, opinion != fact). So M didn't do anything wrong apart from fueling some internet flame (and coL didn't do anything wrong either, only part at fault is Stephano)
sorry but no, at least not under European Law or French law.
Stephano's statement that he would be staying with Millenium is a statement of intent, it is not a contract.
For an oral contract to exist you'd need such a statement, the above mentioned consensus and consideration. Usually in sports (and e-sports) such statements of intent are the basis for a negotiation, the player would say something like: "I'd like to stay here" then the club (organization, whatever) would reply with: "great we can offer you this and that". If he was fine with it he'd take it, otherwise he'd ask for some time to consider his options.
That is what happened with Stephano, (note the "bidding war" mentioned in the OP). In this phase he met repeatedly with Col (over the internet) and got their offer explained to him, he probably even had time to consult a lawyer (or his parents) if he had any doubts about specific clauses.
After that phase he signed (and yes eletronic signatures are valid under French law) a contract and then decided to retract it. While it is very likely that he can retract the contract (without having read it and it's specifics i can't say for certain) he WILL have to pay any damages Col might take from this. That's the standard procedure in European law.
One last comment on the topic of vulnerability: In the eyes of the law such a thing MUST be proven. An 18 year old player (meaning above the age of majority) who had a number of days to make a decision and all the chances he might want to consult outside advisors cannot claim vulnerability. Sorry it simply doesn't fly.
So final result: Stephano (and Mill to some extent since they seem to have known that he HAD signed a contract) are at fault here and will most likely have to pay damages if it comes down to it. Those might be as high as 1k Dollars, but frankly i doubt Col will even be able to prove that much (seriously how much can they have spent in 1 night?). Much ado about nothing and lot's of rage over something few people understand in other words.
|
On September 21 2011 00:23 Gwal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 00:12 Bandino wrote:
Well from Mill's statement it seems that they have no ground to stand on and are just trying to settle out of court. Hope this ends quickly tho. there is nothing to settle in court I think In France, making someone signing a piece of paper and calling it contract doesn't make that piece of paper legal. But there is obviously things to discuss between the 2 structures, and I hope they'll do their best for the future of Stephano.
But even Mill said, that it was a legally binding contract, not just a "piece of paper"
|
I must admit if I ever have an issue I would like Merlimoo to come to my defense, his spirited unwavering support in the face overwhelming odds gives me comfort that there is loyalty left in the world
I would like to coin a new e-term for a solid E-defense team.
La Ligne Merlimoo.
|
On September 21 2011 00:28 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 00:16 Ylrahc wrote:On September 21 2011 00:04 Ryder. wrote:On September 21 2011 00:01 Merlimoo wrote:
Not the mention that he has previously said to Millenium that he will stay with them.
Even in the US, an oral contract, is a contract. So the Millenium one was beforehand and a work contract is not valid if the employee is already under contract. Case closed. Saying you will stay with them does not make it a contract :/ you need an intention to be legally bound, sufficient agreement on all important terms (consensus) and consideration (both parties need to gain something out of it). Please stop spamming this thread with nonsense :/ It's actually the one sensible thing he said : Stephano and M had an oral agreement about Stephano signing in the short future an employment contract with M, whose terms were already fixed. This might very well be enough to render coL contract void under any law, french or US one (even if I doubt it, but as we know, opinion != fact). So M didn't do anything wrong apart from fueling some internet flame (and coL didn't do anything wrong either, only part at fault is Stephano) sorry but no, at least not under European Law or French law. Stephano's statement that he would be staying with Millenium is a statement of intent, it is not a contract. For an oral contract to exist you'd need such a statement, the above mentioned consensus and consideration. Usually in sports (and e-sports) such statements of intent are the basis for a negotiation, the player would say something like: "I'd like to stay here" then the club (organization, whatever) would reply with: "great we can offer you this and that". If he was fine with it he'd take it, otherwise he'd ask for some time to consider his options.
If you read me carefully, you would see I wasn't sure it would hold either. I was just saying it's a possibility. Noone knows exactly what was sealed between M and Stephano beforehand. If it was strong enough (hands shaken over a written exemplary of the contract and promise to sign it a few days later), maybe it would hold. It's a matter of perspective, and I'm sure you understand why M prefers to see all this from theirs.
|
On September 21 2011 00:33 Ylrahc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 00:28 Tula wrote:On September 21 2011 00:16 Ylrahc wrote:On September 21 2011 00:04 Ryder. wrote:On September 21 2011 00:01 Merlimoo wrote:
Not the mention that he has previously said to Millenium that he will stay with them.
Even in the US, an oral contract, is a contract. So the Millenium one was beforehand and a work contract is not valid if the employee is already under contract. Case closed. Saying you will stay with them does not make it a contract :/ you need an intention to be legally bound, sufficient agreement on all important terms (consensus) and consideration (both parties need to gain something out of it). Please stop spamming this thread with nonsense :/ It's actually the one sensible thing he said : Stephano and M had an oral agreement about Stephano signing in the short future an employment contract with M, whose terms were already fixed. This might very well be enough to render coL contract void under any law, french or US one (even if I doubt it, but as we know, opinion != fact). So M didn't do anything wrong apart from fueling some internet flame (and coL didn't do anything wrong either, only part at fault is Stephano) sorry but no, at least not under European Law or French law. Stephano's statement that he would be staying with Millenium is a statement of intent, it is not a contract. For an oral contract to exist you'd need such a statement, the above mentioned consensus and consideration. Usually in sports (and e-sports) such statements of intent are the basis for a negotiation, the player would say something like: "I'd like to stay here" then the club (organization, whatever) would reply with: "great we can offer you this and that". If he was fine with it he'd take it, otherwise he'd ask for some time to consider his options. If you read me carefully, you would see I wasn't sure it would hold either. I was just saying it's a possibility. Noone knows exactly what was sealed between M and Stephano beforehand. If it was strong enough (hands shaked over a written exemplary of the contract and promise to sign it a few days later), maybe it would hold. It's a matter of perspective, and I'm sure you understand why M prefers to see all this from theirs.
I'm sure if that was the case then [M] would have stated this straight away, since it is essentially a 'get out of jail free card' for them and Stephano.
|
On September 21 2011 00:34 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 00:33 Ylrahc wrote:On September 21 2011 00:28 Tula wrote:On September 21 2011 00:16 Ylrahc wrote:On September 21 2011 00:04 Ryder. wrote:On September 21 2011 00:01 Merlimoo wrote:
Not the mention that he has previously said to Millenium that he will stay with them.
Even in the US, an oral contract, is a contract. So the Millenium one was beforehand and a work contract is not valid if the employee is already under contract. Case closed. Saying you will stay with them does not make it a contract :/ you need an intention to be legally bound, sufficient agreement on all important terms (consensus) and consideration (both parties need to gain something out of it). Please stop spamming this thread with nonsense :/ It's actually the one sensible thing he said : Stephano and M had an oral agreement about Stephano signing in the short future an employment contract with M, whose terms were already fixed. This might very well be enough to render coL contract void under any law, french or US one (even if I doubt it, but as we know, opinion != fact). So M didn't do anything wrong apart from fueling some internet flame (and coL didn't do anything wrong either, only part at fault is Stephano) sorry but no, at least not under European Law or French law. Stephano's statement that he would be staying with Millenium is a statement of intent, it is not a contract. For an oral contract to exist you'd need such a statement, the above mentioned consensus and consideration. Usually in sports (and e-sports) such statements of intent are the basis for a negotiation, the player would say something like: "I'd like to stay here" then the club (organization, whatever) would reply with: "great we can offer you this and that". If he was fine with it he'd take it, otherwise he'd ask for some time to consider his options. If you read me carefully, you would see I wasn't sure it would hold either. I was just saying it's a possibility. Noone knows exactly what was sealed between M and Stephano beforehand. If it was strong enough (hands shaked over a written exemplary of the contract and promise to sign it a few days later), maybe it would hold. It's a matter of perspective, and I'm sure you understand why M prefers to see all this from theirs. I'm sure if that was the case then [M] would have stated this straight away, since it is essentially a 'get out of jail free card' for them and Stephano.
Taken from the M statement, highlights on what I think precisely say that :
As you may now know, it has been announced yesterday that Stephano had been hired by team Complexity, and a few hours later, that he had finally decided to sign a permanent position contract with us, Millenium, under conditions previously fixed with him (without any intermediate overbidding).
Although we are very confident that, from a legal point of view, Millenium isn’t violating any applicable rule or law, we would also like to emphasize our good will to see this situation solved the right way.
|
On September 21 2011 00:32 mechavoc wrote:I must admit if I ever have an issue I would like Merlimoo to come to my defense, his spirited unwavering support in the face overwhelming odds gives me comfort that there is loyalty left in the world I would like to coin a new e-term for a solid E-defense team. La Ligne Merlimoo.
OMG! This so nice! Thx.
I'm really moved... <3 !!
User was temp banned for this post.
|
this is contract rape leave him be!!!
|
If we want to take something positive out of this...
...see how far SC2 and pro eSports have gone when we have a 150 page thread about a promising young player having a contract dispute situation.
|
On September 21 2011 00:39 Munchkin wrote:
If we want to take something positive out of this...
...see how far SC2 and pro eSports have gone when we have a 150 page thread about a promising young player having a contract dispute situation.
and believe me, if you compare to "sports team" (i have soccer in mind), this discussion isn't a shame at all. (almost) no free hate at all
|
On September 21 2011 00:36 Merlimoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 00:32 mechavoc wrote:I must admit if I ever have an issue I would like Merlimoo to come to my defense, his spirited unwavering support in the face overwhelming odds gives me comfort that there is loyalty left in the world I would like to coin a new e-term for a solid E-defense team. La Ligne Merlimoo. OMG! This so nice! Thx. I'm really moved... <3 !!
I hope "la ligne Merlimoo" will be better than "la ligne Maginot" :D
|
On September 21 2011 00:42 hyuu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 00:39 Munchkin wrote:
If we want to take something positive out of this...
...see how far SC2 and pro eSports have gone when we have a 150 page thread about a promising young player having a contract dispute situation. and believe me, if you compare to "sports team" (i have soccer in mind), this discussion isn't a shame at all. (almost) no free hate at all
Oh I agree.
I'm just saying there are a ton of eye balls on eSports when we have discussions like this about players contracts.
|
On September 21 2011 00:44 Dandy_Moustachu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 00:36 Merlimoo wrote:On September 21 2011 00:32 mechavoc wrote:I must admit if I ever have an issue I would like Merlimoo to come to my defense, his spirited unwavering support in the face overwhelming odds gives me comfort that there is loyalty left in the world I would like to coin a new e-term for a solid E-defense team. La Ligne Merlimoo. OMG! This so nice! Thx. I'm really moved... <3 !! I hope "la ligne Merlimoo" will be better than "la ligne Maginot" :D
The line was fine, it just the strategy that was flawed. The siege tanks were not placed in the right spot! A runby was possible!
If only they had starcraft to train... xD
|
On September 20 2011 23:44 Merlimoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 23:35 mechavoc wrote:On September 20 2011 23:27 Merlimoo wrote:On September 20 2011 23:24 mechavoc wrote:On September 20 2011 22:59 Merlimoo wrote:
It's astonishing to see the amount of US citizen that really can't be open minded and listen/understand to what we say to them. Just because it's not like that at home, I was thinking the very same thing about the aw shucks he didn't mean to sign it, he is just a kid, it was late, he didn’t have a good night sleep, he didn’t sign with an EU approved felt pen made in France and dipped in Ink from Portugal so it means nothing apologists If you want to quote, have the honesty to quote everything or signal that it was cut. Congratz! You've level up in "Mainstream media ninja technic"! I apologize I don't think I edited out anything of importance so here is the complete quote. I will Bold the part I removed as I didn't think it had anything to do with his point. It's astonishing to see the amount of US citizen that really can't be open minded and listen/understand to what we say to them. Just because it's not like that at home, Durp! Durp! Maybe it's because I'm not native and that I'm english is really bad... Too bad then.
I will stop this conversation, before I get banned for being too mean in a try to educate people. (edit for spelling) Correct me if I'm wrong. What you are trying to say is: A little girl from nevada, just got 18y old, got kicked out of her home after a fight with her parents. All her dreams seemed compromised and she does not know how to make for a living. She met a guy that propose her a job full of promises, sign a contract that said : "You are going to work in a foreign country for $2 a day in a mini skirt and without health insurance.". Obviously that is not what she wanted in her life and try to void the contract. What you said is, she should honor it, screw her life for a good speech in a vulnerable time ? Really ? I mean: REALLY ??!!?? wtf then...
That would be taking advantage of a human in a state of emergancy and defraudation... I don't know the exact english expression but thats what it is in Switzerland!
BUT its not 2$ (one of the best payments in SC2) and he is in a stable living condition without any hardship or anything.
|
On September 21 2011 00:36 Ylrahc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 00:34 Ryder. wrote:On September 21 2011 00:33 Ylrahc wrote:On September 21 2011 00:28 Tula wrote:On September 21 2011 00:16 Ylrahc wrote:On September 21 2011 00:04 Ryder. wrote:On September 21 2011 00:01 Merlimoo wrote:
Not the mention that he has previously said to Millenium that he will stay with them.
Even in the US, an oral contract, is a contract. So the Millenium one was beforehand and a work contract is not valid if the employee is already under contract. Case closed. Saying you will stay with them does not make it a contract :/ you need an intention to be legally bound, sufficient agreement on all important terms (consensus) and consideration (both parties need to gain something out of it). Please stop spamming this thread with nonsense :/ It's actually the one sensible thing he said : Stephano and M had an oral agreement about Stephano signing in the short future an employment contract with M, whose terms were already fixed. This might very well be enough to render coL contract void under any law, french or US one (even if I doubt it, but as we know, opinion != fact). So M didn't do anything wrong apart from fueling some internet flame (and coL didn't do anything wrong either, only part at fault is Stephano) sorry but no, at least not under European Law or French law. Stephano's statement that he would be staying with Millenium is a statement of intent, it is not a contract. For an oral contract to exist you'd need such a statement, the above mentioned consensus and consideration. Usually in sports (and e-sports) such statements of intent are the basis for a negotiation, the player would say something like: "I'd like to stay here" then the club (organization, whatever) would reply with: "great we can offer you this and that". If he was fine with it he'd take it, otherwise he'd ask for some time to consider his options. If you read me carefully, you would see I wasn't sure it would hold either. I was just saying it's a possibility. Noone knows exactly what was sealed between M and Stephano beforehand. If it was strong enough (hands shaked over a written exemplary of the contract and promise to sign it a few days later), maybe it would hold. It's a matter of perspective, and I'm sure you understand why M prefers to see all this from theirs. I'm sure if that was the case then [M] would have stated this straight away, since it is essentially a 'get out of jail free card' for them and Stephano. Taken from the M statement, highlights on what I think precisely say that : Show nested quote +
As you may now know, it has been announced yesterday that Stephano had been hired by team Complexity, and a few hours later, that he had finally decided to sign a permanent position contract with us, Millenium, under conditions previously fixed with him (without any intermediate overbidding).
Although we are very confident that, from a legal point of view, Millenium isn’t violating any applicable rule or law, we would also like to emphasize our good will to see this situation solved the right way.
The question is, how truthful is that statement? I mean, if that was the case, why did Stephano sign with Complexity at all, if he had already agreed to terms with Millenium? On top of that, why would they have waited to release that news, rather than come out with it at the very start of all this conflict. It seems, from my point of view, like Millenium is just trying to find a loophole out of this.
|
Netherlands19129 Posts
|
I think it''s quite unprofessional of both organizations, both complexity and millenium to fight this out in the public eye.
Talk about maturing the Esports environment! I don''t think the way these contract issues are made public are part of that.
They could resolve this issue privately, legally if needed. And then make a statement after it has been resolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
