|
|
my understanding of this situation is as follows:
1.MoW stated clearly that 600euro has to be paid up front. 2.agreement was done about contract shape 3.Fuzer didn't want to sign contract without consultations with his layer wich is totaly understandable 4.MoW asked for lawyer's licence wich also totaly understandable as this is a buissnes contract and it can not be distributet freely 5.Fuzer faild to provide this licence. In my opinion it shouldn't be a problem at all, he said it was HIS lawyer so I really can't imagine why he couldn't get this pice of paper (scan or whatever) in 4 days! 6.Ultimatum was made by MoW: sign or get the fuck out. 7.Fuzer goes back to Finland and start teasing and accusing MoW for stealing on his fb account
now we should go back to the first point, he KNEW about up front deal and in my opinion acted childish. MoW was no better (even in polish scene it is well known their PR is below any standards) and instead of dealing with situation properly they allowed the shit to flood TL. well done.
btw. grats to comunity for showing what's bad on the scene.
|
On September 14 2012 14:41 Grimmyman123 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 13:20 lisward wrote:On September 14 2012 12:55 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 10:36 Stutters695 wrote:On September 14 2012 10:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 09:58 mikkmagro wrote:On September 14 2012 09:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 09:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 09:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 05:51 Akta wrote: [quote]Seems like you ignore that it's mainly a business decision. You can make detailed clauses how to value broken equipment, you can let common law deal with broken equipment, you can cover things in broad terms etc, can does not mean should. You can of course try to avoid any responsibility for anything what so ever regardless of how minor the potential problems and financial losses are, even if it makes people avoid doing business with you.
So it's a business decision? Let's analyze the situation. You're insinuating that a shorter contract, while offering less potential safeguards, can be more valuable than a long term contract because you have increased demand for your product. But oh wait, demand is already through the roof for MoW. In fact, even with their current terms, they are currently having to reject people. They are at maximum capacity. So what exactly does increasing demand while simultaneously increasing liability do for the company? Increased demand has nearly zero effect while increasing liability does exactly that - it increases a company's liability. On September 14 2012 06:06 Grimmyman123 wrote: [quote]
I agree that the contract should be complete - but it does not need to be the length that it was, as I explained previously. A few pages for the residential component, a couple for the gaming house component, and a couple for resolution and default component. It does not need to be as massive as one thinks. It is a fairly simple scenario, and it does not need to look like or be worded like an insurance document, which are often times massively excessive - largely because insurance companies are excessive about not paying for anything, and provide themselves any means necessary of maintaining this.
Regarding durress - yeah, being asked to leave your place of residence, unless you sign the contract, is certainly qualification as such. Any time a negative penalty is threatened for failing to comply with a demand, is durress in a simple fashion.
And I have years of civil law experience as a paralegal.
However, if Poland's legal system has this covered in their common law, is a completely different scenario. Contract law varies massively from region to region, and in this case might as well be half a world away.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. As a paralegal you're significantly more qualified than me in that regard then. Not saying my paralegal makes me more or less knowledgable than you, I really did not mean it to be negatively tone, I assure you. One thing is that is consistent, is that a lot of what we consider common sense (and common law) doesn't necessarily need to be in a contract. The word "Damages" as an example, when in more minor financial terms, doesn't need to be spelt out quite so much. I can completely understand in the insurance industry why the contracts are so complete - superior court battles for months on end, all about contract language and loopholes take place. Insurance contracts need to be exceedingly specific. But, a well worded contract, broken into specific parts, will do the job nicely for a situation like this. Moreso, a good portion of the contract could be negated, when it comes to things like rules of the house, general duties, cleanliness, etc which simply could refer to a duties and expectations book which can be modified and changed as needed to suit the house and the people in it. I remind newcomers to the small claims court and entry level civil litigation world that common law is common sense, and the court is not stupid - it will always rule to what is fair and equitable. Don't worry I didn't take it negatively. I was very open to the possibility I was wrong concerning my lack of expertise or even general familiarity in that specific subject matter. Only thing is I'd find it hard to buy that Fuzer could claim it was his residence.... Since no contract was signed I would assume it would very well be within the MoW's rights to evict him at any time from their premises. The contract is what gives Fuzer the right to remain at the residence in the first place - because it was never signed, he had no right to be their since no official terms had been negotiated? Once again, it's just what goes through my head. I could be completely off. Not really, because they accepted his second payment. Though some countries do require a written contract when renting a place for a certain period of time. It's a weird situation, because a court would look at whether the parties considered the time spent there with no contract as being on a trial basis (as they said in their own statements); However even so, MoW should have waited for the end of the month to give him such a deadline. Yeah, I definitely recognize that he did give payment. I just wasn't sure about the duress situation. And to top it off, many situations stipulate there are not full refunds for many reasons. For example, in court MoW could argue that Fuzer was given reasonable time (a full month) to figure things out and it was his fault for not sorting things out sooner. Furthermore, they could argue that he is not entitled to a refund because Fuzer's withdrawal would mean a vacant spot that MoW might not be able to be pulled and thus would cost the company a loss of income due to Fuzer's bad faith. It would depend on whether or not the court saw legitimacy in Fuzer's claims on necessity to see a lawyer as well as the time it took him to try to go about this task. I would assume it's more complicated than you're making it, although I still assume, like you, Fuzer would have the upper hand in the argument. But MoW would definitely have a defense to go off of, it's not a slam dunk case... Your argument falls flat on its face for a few reasons. He wanted to stay there and they were negotiating the contract. Even the MoW statements on this put the timeframe since they started negotiating at "a few weeks ago" not a full month. They never sent the contract to his lawyer. If there is any bad faith here it would be from MoW because they told him to sign or leave. If they weren't prepared to have him in the house without their non-compete/whatever else they shouldn't have accepted his money and let him stay. At the very least it should have been on a day by day/week by week basis. They stole his money and need to return it. It is as simple as that. 1. Him wanting to stay is irrelevant. 2. Few week time frame while he's actually residing in the house is only going to work against him, not MoW. 3. Sign or leave isn't acting in bad faith. In fact, it's how a ton of non-negotiable contracts work. Hence the phrase "take it or leave it." 4. You're right, they shouldn't have. That in itself is not an incriminating reason, necessarily. 5. It's not usually on a day-by-day basis. If anything, sure he would be entitled to a pro-rata refund after fronting a chunk of money up front. However, as stated prior, many places do not offer refunds because you refused their terms (many do, as well). As I said prior, they could claim loss of rental income otherwise due to his actions as a defense. 6. It's technically not stealing, regardless of how shady it is and regardless as well if Fuzer does end up even getting his money back. On September 14 2012 12:48 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 09:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 09:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 09:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 05:51 Akta wrote:On September 14 2012 04:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 04:01 Grimmyman123 wrote: I only have a few points to make.
For MoW to demand the lawyers certification is excessive. His name and identifying information is sufficient, if provided, and even that should not be required. Simply being informed that a player wants his legal representative or a third party to review a contract is reasonable. If the contract has substantial changes, then this process should be repeated for all parties to ensure the contract is lawful, fair and equitable.
To force a player to sign a contract under threat of a penalty is signing a contract under duress, and in most legal jurisdictions invalidates the contract completely.
The contract should not need to be 10 pages long. This is excessive, and is something from the days of old where lawyers were paid by the word, and would in turn write massive contracts to increase their billing. Modern language and contracts can summarize a rental or residential agreement in under 2 pages, sometimes 3. With the addition of the gaming portion, what is expected, this should only take another page. A final page devoted to resolution of conflicts, default conditions, etc, should take a final page. All pages should have sign off or initial at the bottom, as well as a witness sign off, and should be properly bound or attached together. Any edits to the contract need to be initialed by both parties.
From information provided, some confirmed by MoW - the contract is null and void. Any default provision contained therein is also the same.
In my opinion, MoW owes the player their fee back, based on a per diem rate, and less any other reasonable expenses that MoW suffered ( such as costs of groceries not consumed, linens, etc) but this may not apply as evidence suggests that MoW did not go out of pocket excessively, and was insufficient with its purchasing of food for players.
That said, if the player made slanderous remarks about MoW which are untrue, there may be legal reprocussions from that, though that does not appear to be the case as most information was confirmed by MoW.
MoW is a rookie to this type of business venture. It needs to be clear and transparent to all parties and players involved. This in itself will resolve most problems and issues if any arrise.
I do not blame the player for what he did, and I support it if someone is wronged, and in my opinion that has occured to the player.
I cannot comment on the legal process in Poland or if it is fair or equitable. Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause. If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass. Seems like you ignore that it's mainly a business decision. You can make detailed clauses how to value broken equipment, you can let common law deal with broken equipment, you can cover things in broad terms etc, can does not mean should. You can of course try to avoid any responsibility for anything what so ever regardless of how minor the potential problems and financial losses are, even if it makes people avoid doing business with you. So it's a business decision? Let's analyze the situation. You're insinuating that a shorter contract, while offering less potential safeguards, can be more valuable than a long term contract because you have increased demand for your product. But oh wait, demand is already through the roof for MoW. In fact, even with their current terms, they are currently having to reject people. They are at maximum capacity. So what exactly does increasing demand while simultaneously increasing liability do for the company? Increased demand has nearly zero effect while increasing liability does exactly that - it increases a company's liability. On September 14 2012 06:06 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 04:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 04:01 Grimmyman123 wrote: I only have a few points to make.
For MoW to demand the lawyers certification is excessive. His name and identifying information is sufficient, if provided, and even that should not be required. Simply being informed that a player wants his legal representative or a third party to review a contract is reasonable. If the contract has substantial changes, then this process should be repeated for all parties to ensure the contract is lawful, fair and equitable.
To force a player to sign a contract under threat of a penalty is signing a contract under duress, and in most legal jurisdictions invalidates the contract completely.
The contract should not need to be 10 pages long. This is excessive, and is something from the days of old where lawyers were paid by the word, and would in turn write massive contracts to increase their billing. Modern language and contracts can summarize a rental or residential agreement in under 2 pages, sometimes 3. With the addition of the gaming portion, what is expected, this should only take another page. A final page devoted to resolution of conflicts, default conditions, etc, should take a final page. All pages should have sign off or initial at the bottom, as well as a witness sign off, and should be properly bound or attached together. Any edits to the contract need to be initialed by both parties.
From information provided, some confirmed by MoW - the contract is null and void. Any default provision contained therein is also the same.
In my opinion, MoW owes the player their fee back, based on a per diem rate, and less any other reasonable expenses that MoW suffered ( such as costs of groceries not consumed, linens, etc) but this may not apply as evidence suggests that MoW did not go out of pocket excessively, and was insufficient with its purchasing of food for players.
That said, if the player made slanderous remarks about MoW which are untrue, there may be legal reprocussions from that, though that does not appear to be the case as most information was confirmed by MoW.
MoW is a rookie to this type of business venture. It needs to be clear and transparent to all parties and players involved. This in itself will resolve most problems and issues if any arrise.
I do not blame the player for what he did, and I support it if someone is wronged, and in my opinion that has occured to the player.
I cannot comment on the legal process in Poland or if it is fair or equitable. I'm not sure that would legally hold up as signing under durress, by my contract analsys exposure (which I do have a decent amount of in my occupation in insurance!) has not addressed that whatsoever, so who knows. It's very circumstantial and this case would be completely borderline. He voluntarily parted with said money and with no contract in force to stipulate he would get a return for his money, it becomes more gray (although still heavily in Fuzer's favor, just saying that it's a defense against it being durress). Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause. If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass. I agree that the contract should be complete - but it does not need to be the length that it was, as I explained previously. A few pages for the residential component, a couple for the gaming house component, and a couple for resolution and default component. It does not need to be as massive as one thinks. It is a fairly simple scenario, and it does not need to look like or be worded like an insurance document, which are often times massively excessive - largely because insurance companies are excessive about not paying for anything, and provide themselves any means necessary of maintaining this. Regarding durress - yeah, being asked to leave your place of residence, unless you sign the contract, is certainly qualification as such. Any time a negative penalty is threatened for failing to comply with a demand, is durress in a simple fashion. And I have years of civil law experience as a paralegal. However, if Poland's legal system has this covered in their common law, is a completely different scenario. Contract law varies massively from region to region, and in this case might as well be half a world away. Ok, thanks for the clarification. As a paralegal you're significantly more qualified than me in that regard then. Not saying my paralegal makes me more or less knowledgable than you, I really did not mean it to be negatively tone, I assure you. One thing is that is consistent, is that a lot of what we consider common sense (and common law) doesn't necessarily need to be in a contract. The word "Damages" as an example, when in more minor financial terms, doesn't need to be spelt out quite so much. I can completely understand in the insurance industry why the contracts are so complete - superior court battles for months on end, all about contract language and loopholes take place. Insurance contracts need to be exceedingly specific. But, a well worded contract, broken into specific parts, will do the job nicely for a situation like this. Moreso, a good portion of the contract could be negated, when it comes to things like rules of the house, general duties, cleanliness, etc which simply could refer to a duties and expectations book which can be modified and changed as needed to suit the house and the people in it. I remind newcomers to the small claims court and entry level civil litigation world that common law is common sense, and the court is not stupid - it will always rule to what is fair and equitable. Don't worry I didn't take it negatively. I was very open to the possibility I was wrong concerning my lack of expertise or even general familiarity in that specific subject matter. Only thing is I'd find it hard to buy that Fuzer could claim it was his residence.... Since no contract was signed I would assume it would very well be within the MoW's rights to evict him at any time from their premises. The contract is what gives Fuzer the right to remain at the residence in the first place - because it was never signed, he had no right to be their since no official terms had been negotiated? Once again, it's just what goes through my head. I could be completely off. Yeah, pretty much it. When there is no contract, local statute law takes its place, and supersedes most contracts when residency is concerned. So, what ever Polish local law addresses Tenancy situations would apply. Since the situation is "Likely" a Room and Board arrangement, that would have to be individually addressed. Some courts and tribunals do not recognise a Boarder as a regular tenant and as such the individual may or may not be protected by local law regarding tenants. I should add, at least in Canada - one does not require a written tenancy agreement to have a month to month or week to week tenancy agreement. That the first month was paid for and he resided there without issue, and the next month they force his hand with the contract still not signed - is a sign of bad faith. In fairness, they should have given fair warning before taking his next months rent, that the contract issue was outstanding. If they intended to enforce the lack of a signed contract, they should not have accepted his rent - the verbal rental agreement from the previous month takes precedence. Evicting him after taking his rent was 1) not fair 2) not equitable and 3) in most jurisdictions would be unlawful. Considering they let him stay a full month in the first place without a signed contract can't possibly work against MoW, can it? If anything, I'd assume that would be against Fuzer, assuming MoW had made it clear from the start they wanted him contracted. I highly doubt he was under the impression the entire time he was not going to need to sign it. Interesting to note about the prior verbal agreement though and how that does indeed work against MoW.... well, at least in Canada. Makes sense, I guess, to an extent. Like I've said from the start, I definitely think he's completely entitled to a pro-rata refund, I was just stipulating that it was most likely not as clear cut as "this is how it is." I think everyone fails to understand that a contract is not specifically something written in blood with a parchment, a contract is an agreement, there need not be anything signed. If I legitamately agreed to sell you my car for a dollar, you take me up on my offer, we have a contract. I cannot back out stating that you didn't sign anything, because I made you and offer, you accepted my offer, and there is consideration. That is a contract. You can argue that they had a contract the moment Fuzer paid him the money, after he made an offer for him to stay. Thank you for your insight. Please read my posts above, I do cover verbal contracts (agreements). His insight seems to stem from a first year contracts textbook. The fact that there is no written contract -- or any written memorandum -- and that the sale of a car is for one dollar would automatically raise issues of intent to form a contract. And if the two parties are now disputing the fact that there was an agreement in the first place and there is no proof other than he she and the seemingly unbelievable terms of the agreement a court would probably not enforce that contract.
MoW letting him and Fuzer giving them money could be viewed as implied consent to the terms of the contract, as both parties acted as if the contract was signed. [Fuzer moved in, MoW fed him and whatnot.]
|
On September 14 2012 15:20 s00s wrote:
4.MoW asked for lawyer's licence wich also totaly understandable as this is a buissnes contract and it can not be distributet freely
I dont see why MoW has to confirm Fuzer' lawyers license, unless there is some strange Polish law to that effect. For their purposes, Fuzer and his lawyer are like one person.
|
On September 14 2012 15:20 s00s wrote: my understanding of this situation is as follows:
1.MoW stated clearly that 600euro has to be paid up front. 2.agreement was done about contract shape 3.Fuzer didn't want to sign contract without consultations with his layer wich is totaly understandable 4.MoW asked for lawyer's licence wich also totaly understandable as this is a buissnes contract and it can not be distributet freely 5.Fuzer faild to provide this licence. In my opinion it shouldn't be a problem at all, he said it was HIS lawyer so I really can't imagine why he couldn't get this pice of paper (scan or whatever) in 4 days! 6.Ultimatum was made by MoW: sign or get the fuck out. 7.Fuzer goes back to Finland and start teasing and accusing MoW for stealing on his fb account
now we should go back to the first point, he KNEW about up front deal and in my opinion acted childish. MoW was no better (even in polish scene it is well known their PR is below any standards) and instead of dealing with situation properly they allowed the shit to flood TL. well done.
btw. grats to comunity for showing what's bad on the scene.
EY look another poland account with 3 posts, yeah nice smurf!
User was warned for this post
|
fuck MoW, there i fucking said it ban me idc i do not support this kind of treatment to dedicated players, it's beyond me to not properly feed someone when you pay 600/month wow im so mad, MoW can go to f'ing hell
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I have two points: 1) Wow 600€ is a shitload of money for living in Poland. °_° 2) Why would anyone sign a contract that prohibits you for 10 years to go into another gaming house?!? Does that e.g. mean, that ret couldn't join another teamliquid house? oO
|
On September 14 2012 15:22 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 14:41 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 13:20 lisward wrote:On September 14 2012 12:55 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 10:36 Stutters695 wrote:On September 14 2012 10:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 09:58 mikkmagro wrote:On September 14 2012 09:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 09:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 09:17 FabledIntegral wrote: [quote]
So it's a business decision? Let's analyze the situation.
You're insinuating that a shorter contract, while offering less potential safeguards, can be more valuable than a long term contract because you have increased demand for your product.
But oh wait, demand is already through the roof for MoW. In fact, even with their current terms, they are currently having to reject people. They are at maximum capacity. So what exactly does increasing demand while simultaneously increasing liability do for the company?
Increased demand has nearly zero effect while increasing liability does exactly that - it increases a company's liability.
[quote]
Ok, thanks for the clarification. As a paralegal you're significantly more qualified than me in that regard then. Not saying my paralegal makes me more or less knowledgable than you, I really did not mean it to be negatively tone, I assure you. One thing is that is consistent, is that a lot of what we consider common sense (and common law) doesn't necessarily need to be in a contract. The word "Damages" as an example, when in more minor financial terms, doesn't need to be spelt out quite so much. I can completely understand in the insurance industry why the contracts are so complete - superior court battles for months on end, all about contract language and loopholes take place. Insurance contracts need to be exceedingly specific. But, a well worded contract, broken into specific parts, will do the job nicely for a situation like this. Moreso, a good portion of the contract could be negated, when it comes to things like rules of the house, general duties, cleanliness, etc which simply could refer to a duties and expectations book which can be modified and changed as needed to suit the house and the people in it. I remind newcomers to the small claims court and entry level civil litigation world that common law is common sense, and the court is not stupid - it will always rule to what is fair and equitable. Don't worry I didn't take it negatively. I was very open to the possibility I was wrong concerning my lack of expertise or even general familiarity in that specific subject matter. Only thing is I'd find it hard to buy that Fuzer could claim it was his residence.... Since no contract was signed I would assume it would very well be within the MoW's rights to evict him at any time from their premises. The contract is what gives Fuzer the right to remain at the residence in the first place - because it was never signed, he had no right to be their since no official terms had been negotiated? Once again, it's just what goes through my head. I could be completely off. Not really, because they accepted his second payment. Though some countries do require a written contract when renting a place for a certain period of time. It's a weird situation, because a court would look at whether the parties considered the time spent there with no contract as being on a trial basis (as they said in their own statements); However even so, MoW should have waited for the end of the month to give him such a deadline. Yeah, I definitely recognize that he did give payment. I just wasn't sure about the duress situation. And to top it off, many situations stipulate there are not full refunds for many reasons. For example, in court MoW could argue that Fuzer was given reasonable time (a full month) to figure things out and it was his fault for not sorting things out sooner. Furthermore, they could argue that he is not entitled to a refund because Fuzer's withdrawal would mean a vacant spot that MoW might not be able to be pulled and thus would cost the company a loss of income due to Fuzer's bad faith. It would depend on whether or not the court saw legitimacy in Fuzer's claims on necessity to see a lawyer as well as the time it took him to try to go about this task. I would assume it's more complicated than you're making it, although I still assume, like you, Fuzer would have the upper hand in the argument. But MoW would definitely have a defense to go off of, it's not a slam dunk case... Your argument falls flat on its face for a few reasons. He wanted to stay there and they were negotiating the contract. Even the MoW statements on this put the timeframe since they started negotiating at "a few weeks ago" not a full month. They never sent the contract to his lawyer. If there is any bad faith here it would be from MoW because they told him to sign or leave. If they weren't prepared to have him in the house without their non-compete/whatever else they shouldn't have accepted his money and let him stay. At the very least it should have been on a day by day/week by week basis. They stole his money and need to return it. It is as simple as that. 1. Him wanting to stay is irrelevant. 2. Few week time frame while he's actually residing in the house is only going to work against him, not MoW. 3. Sign or leave isn't acting in bad faith. In fact, it's how a ton of non-negotiable contracts work. Hence the phrase "take it or leave it." 4. You're right, they shouldn't have. That in itself is not an incriminating reason, necessarily. 5. It's not usually on a day-by-day basis. If anything, sure he would be entitled to a pro-rata refund after fronting a chunk of money up front. However, as stated prior, many places do not offer refunds because you refused their terms (many do, as well). As I said prior, they could claim loss of rental income otherwise due to his actions as a defense. 6. It's technically not stealing, regardless of how shady it is and regardless as well if Fuzer does end up even getting his money back. On September 14 2012 12:48 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 09:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 09:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 09:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 05:51 Akta wrote:On September 14 2012 04:47 FabledIntegral wrote: [quote]Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause.
If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass. Seems like you ignore that it's mainly a business decision. You can make detailed clauses how to value broken equipment, you can let common law deal with broken equipment, you can cover things in broad terms etc, can does not mean should. You can of course try to avoid any responsibility for anything what so ever regardless of how minor the potential problems and financial losses are, even if it makes people avoid doing business with you. So it's a business decision? Let's analyze the situation. You're insinuating that a shorter contract, while offering less potential safeguards, can be more valuable than a long term contract because you have increased demand for your product. But oh wait, demand is already through the roof for MoW. In fact, even with their current terms, they are currently having to reject people. They are at maximum capacity. So what exactly does increasing demand while simultaneously increasing liability do for the company? Increased demand has nearly zero effect while increasing liability does exactly that - it increases a company's liability. On September 14 2012 06:06 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 04:47 FabledIntegral wrote: [quote]
I'm not sure that would legally hold up as signing under durress, by my contract analsys exposure (which I do have a decent amount of in my occupation in insurance!) has not addressed that whatsoever, so who knows. It's very circumstantial and this case would be completely borderline.
He voluntarily parted with said money and with no contract in force to stipulate he would get a return for his money, it becomes more gray (although still heavily in Fuzer's favor, just saying that it's a defense against it being durress).
Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause.
If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass. I agree that the contract should be complete - but it does not need to be the length that it was, as I explained previously. A few pages for the residential component, a couple for the gaming house component, and a couple for resolution and default component. It does not need to be as massive as one thinks. It is a fairly simple scenario, and it does not need to look like or be worded like an insurance document, which are often times massively excessive - largely because insurance companies are excessive about not paying for anything, and provide themselves any means necessary of maintaining this. Regarding durress - yeah, being asked to leave your place of residence, unless you sign the contract, is certainly qualification as such. Any time a negative penalty is threatened for failing to comply with a demand, is durress in a simple fashion. And I have years of civil law experience as a paralegal. However, if Poland's legal system has this covered in their common law, is a completely different scenario. Contract law varies massively from region to region, and in this case might as well be half a world away. Ok, thanks for the clarification. As a paralegal you're significantly more qualified than me in that regard then. Not saying my paralegal makes me more or less knowledgable than you, I really did not mean it to be negatively tone, I assure you. One thing is that is consistent, is that a lot of what we consider common sense (and common law) doesn't necessarily need to be in a contract. The word "Damages" as an example, when in more minor financial terms, doesn't need to be spelt out quite so much. I can completely understand in the insurance industry why the contracts are so complete - superior court battles for months on end, all about contract language and loopholes take place. Insurance contracts need to be exceedingly specific. But, a well worded contract, broken into specific parts, will do the job nicely for a situation like this. Moreso, a good portion of the contract could be negated, when it comes to things like rules of the house, general duties, cleanliness, etc which simply could refer to a duties and expectations book which can be modified and changed as needed to suit the house and the people in it. I remind newcomers to the small claims court and entry level civil litigation world that common law is common sense, and the court is not stupid - it will always rule to what is fair and equitable. Don't worry I didn't take it negatively. I was very open to the possibility I was wrong concerning my lack of expertise or even general familiarity in that specific subject matter. Only thing is I'd find it hard to buy that Fuzer could claim it was his residence.... Since no contract was signed I would assume it would very well be within the MoW's rights to evict him at any time from their premises. The contract is what gives Fuzer the right to remain at the residence in the first place - because it was never signed, he had no right to be their since no official terms had been negotiated? Once again, it's just what goes through my head. I could be completely off. Yeah, pretty much it. When there is no contract, local statute law takes its place, and supersedes most contracts when residency is concerned. So, what ever Polish local law addresses Tenancy situations would apply. Since the situation is "Likely" a Room and Board arrangement, that would have to be individually addressed. Some courts and tribunals do not recognise a Boarder as a regular tenant and as such the individual may or may not be protected by local law regarding tenants. I should add, at least in Canada - one does not require a written tenancy agreement to have a month to month or week to week tenancy agreement. That the first month was paid for and he resided there without issue, and the next month they force his hand with the contract still not signed - is a sign of bad faith. In fairness, they should have given fair warning before taking his next months rent, that the contract issue was outstanding. If they intended to enforce the lack of a signed contract, they should not have accepted his rent - the verbal rental agreement from the previous month takes precedence. Evicting him after taking his rent was 1) not fair 2) not equitable and 3) in most jurisdictions would be unlawful. Considering they let him stay a full month in the first place without a signed contract can't possibly work against MoW, can it? If anything, I'd assume that would be against Fuzer, assuming MoW had made it clear from the start they wanted him contracted. I highly doubt he was under the impression the entire time he was not going to need to sign it. Interesting to note about the prior verbal agreement though and how that does indeed work against MoW.... well, at least in Canada. Makes sense, I guess, to an extent. Like I've said from the start, I definitely think he's completely entitled to a pro-rata refund, I was just stipulating that it was most likely not as clear cut as "this is how it is." I think everyone fails to understand that a contract is not specifically something written in blood with a parchment, a contract is an agreement, there need not be anything signed. If I legitamately agreed to sell you my car for a dollar, you take me up on my offer, we have a contract. I cannot back out stating that you didn't sign anything, because I made you and offer, you accepted my offer, and there is consideration. That is a contract. You can argue that they had a contract the moment Fuzer paid him the money, after he made an offer for him to stay. Thank you for your insight. Please read my posts above, I do cover verbal contracts (agreements). His insight seems to stem from a first year contracts textbook. The fact that there is no written contract -- or any written memorandum -- and that the sale of a car is for one dollar would automatically raise issues of intent to form a contract. And if the two parties are now disputing the fact that there was an agreement in the first place and there is no proof other than he she and the seemingly unbelievable terms of the agreement a court would probably not enforce that contract. MoW letting him and Fuzer giving them money could be viewed as implied consent to the terms of the contract, as both parties acted as if the contract was signed. [Fuzer moved in, MoW fed him and whatnot.] Thanks for repeating everything, you're really intelligent!
|
On September 14 2012 15:54 SevenShots wrote: I have two points: 1) Wow 600€ is a shitload of money for living in Poland. °_° 2) Why would anyone sign a contract that prohibits you for 10 years to go into another gaming house?!? Does that e.g. mean, that ret couldn't join another teamliquid house? oO
For all we know, Ret and the others just might have different contracts with different terms. Not saying that they do, but the "bigger profile" players just might have negotiated better terms for themselves. You never know. Hope this mess gets sorted out, whatever the outcome.
|
On September 14 2012 15:01 mikkmagro wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 14:40 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 09:50 mikkmagro wrote:On September 14 2012 09:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 09:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 05:51 Akta wrote:On September 14 2012 04:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 04:01 Grimmyman123 wrote: I only have a few points to make.
For MoW to demand the lawyers certification is excessive. His name and identifying information is sufficient, if provided, and even that should not be required. Simply being informed that a player wants his legal representative or a third party to review a contract is reasonable. If the contract has substantial changes, then this process should be repeated for all parties to ensure the contract is lawful, fair and equitable.
To force a player to sign a contract under threat of a penalty is signing a contract under duress, and in most legal jurisdictions invalidates the contract completely.
The contract should not need to be 10 pages long. This is excessive, and is something from the days of old where lawyers were paid by the word, and would in turn write massive contracts to increase their billing. Modern language and contracts can summarize a rental or residential agreement in under 2 pages, sometimes 3. With the addition of the gaming portion, what is expected, this should only take another page. A final page devoted to resolution of conflicts, default conditions, etc, should take a final page. All pages should have sign off or initial at the bottom, as well as a witness sign off, and should be properly bound or attached together. Any edits to the contract need to be initialed by both parties.
From information provided, some confirmed by MoW - the contract is null and void. Any default provision contained therein is also the same.
In my opinion, MoW owes the player their fee back, based on a per diem rate, and less any other reasonable expenses that MoW suffered ( such as costs of groceries not consumed, linens, etc) but this may not apply as evidence suggests that MoW did not go out of pocket excessively, and was insufficient with its purchasing of food for players.
That said, if the player made slanderous remarks about MoW which are untrue, there may be legal reprocussions from that, though that does not appear to be the case as most information was confirmed by MoW.
MoW is a rookie to this type of business venture. It needs to be clear and transparent to all parties and players involved. This in itself will resolve most problems and issues if any arrise.
I do not blame the player for what he did, and I support it if someone is wronged, and in my opinion that has occured to the player.
I cannot comment on the legal process in Poland or if it is fair or equitable. Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause. If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass. Seems like you ignore that it's mainly a business decision. You can make detailed clauses how to value broken equipment, you can let common law deal with broken equipment, you can cover things in broad terms etc, can does not mean should. You can of course try to avoid any responsibility for anything what so ever regardless of how minor the potential problems and financial losses are, even if it makes people avoid doing business with you. So it's a business decision? Let's analyze the situation. You're insinuating that a shorter contract, while offering less potential safeguards, can be more valuable than a long term contract because you have increased demand for your product. But oh wait, demand is already through the roof for MoW. In fact, even with their current terms, they are currently having to reject people. They are at maximum capacity. So what exactly does increasing demand while simultaneously increasing liability do for the company? Increased demand has nearly zero effect while increasing liability does exactly that - it increases a company's liability. On September 14 2012 06:06 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 04:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 04:01 Grimmyman123 wrote: I only have a few points to make.
For MoW to demand the lawyers certification is excessive. His name and identifying information is sufficient, if provided, and even that should not be required. Simply being informed that a player wants his legal representative or a third party to review a contract is reasonable. If the contract has substantial changes, then this process should be repeated for all parties to ensure the contract is lawful, fair and equitable.
To force a player to sign a contract under threat of a penalty is signing a contract under duress, and in most legal jurisdictions invalidates the contract completely.
The contract should not need to be 10 pages long. This is excessive, and is something from the days of old where lawyers were paid by the word, and would in turn write massive contracts to increase their billing. Modern language and contracts can summarize a rental or residential agreement in under 2 pages, sometimes 3. With the addition of the gaming portion, what is expected, this should only take another page. A final page devoted to resolution of conflicts, default conditions, etc, should take a final page. All pages should have sign off or initial at the bottom, as well as a witness sign off, and should be properly bound or attached together. Any edits to the contract need to be initialed by both parties.
From information provided, some confirmed by MoW - the contract is null and void. Any default provision contained therein is also the same.
In my opinion, MoW owes the player their fee back, based on a per diem rate, and less any other reasonable expenses that MoW suffered ( such as costs of groceries not consumed, linens, etc) but this may not apply as evidence suggests that MoW did not go out of pocket excessively, and was insufficient with its purchasing of food for players.
That said, if the player made slanderous remarks about MoW which are untrue, there may be legal reprocussions from that, though that does not appear to be the case as most information was confirmed by MoW.
MoW is a rookie to this type of business venture. It needs to be clear and transparent to all parties and players involved. This in itself will resolve most problems and issues if any arrise.
I do not blame the player for what he did, and I support it if someone is wronged, and in my opinion that has occured to the player.
I cannot comment on the legal process in Poland or if it is fair or equitable. I'm not sure that would legally hold up as signing under durress, by my contract analsys exposure (which I do have a decent amount of in my occupation in insurance!) has not addressed that whatsoever, so who knows. It's very circumstantial and this case would be completely borderline. He voluntarily parted with said money and with no contract in force to stipulate he would get a return for his money, it becomes more gray (although still heavily in Fuzer's favor, just saying that it's a defense against it being durress). Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause. If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass. I agree that the contract should be complete - but it does not need to be the length that it was, as I explained previously. A few pages for the residential component, a couple for the gaming house component, and a couple for resolution and default component. It does not need to be as massive as one thinks. It is a fairly simple scenario, and it does not need to look like or be worded like an insurance document, which are often times massively excessive - largely because insurance companies are excessive about not paying for anything, and provide themselves any means necessary of maintaining this. Regarding durress - yeah, being asked to leave your place of residence, unless you sign the contract, is certainly qualification as such. Any time a negative penalty is threatened for failing to comply with a demand, is durress in a simple fashion. And I have years of civil law experience as a paralegal. However, if Poland's legal system has this covered in their common law, is a completely different scenario. Contract law varies massively from region to region, and in this case might as well be half a world away. Ok, thanks for the clarification. As a paralegal you're significantly more qualified than me in that regard then. Not saying my paralegal makes me more or less knowledgable than you, I really did not mean it to be negatively tone, I assure you. One thing is that is consistent, is that a lot of what we consider common sense (and common law) doesn't necessarily need to be in a contract. The word "Damages" as an example, when in more minor financial terms, doesn't need to be spelt out quite so much. I can completely understand in the insurance industry why the contracts are so complete - superior court battles for months on end, all about contract language and loopholes take place. Insurance contracts need to be exceedingly specific. But, a well worded contract, broken into specific parts, will do the job nicely for a situation like this. Moreso, a good portion of the contract could be negated, when it comes to things like rules of the house, general duties, cleanliness, etc which simply could refer to a duties and expectations book which can be modified and changed as needed to suit the house and the people in it. I remind newcomers to the small claims court and entry level civil litigation world that common law is common sense, and the court is not stupid - it will always rule to what is fair and equitable. Polish Law is not Common Law :X Explain your oh so witty remark. What do you mean? Examples? It's not a witty remark. The system of law that applies in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and most Commonwealth states is different to that applied in Continental Europe. Equity is a Common Law concept which does not apply to Poland. There are similar mechanisms, sure, but Civil Law works differently in several areas. A Civil Law judge's job would be to look at what the parties agreed to, not what is equitable - if the parties enter into an agreement with the view that after a trial period, the contract would be signed, and that the tenant would agree to the rules of the house, then that holds up in court.
Thank you, please just post that next time.
|
On September 14 2012 15:33 Gardel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 15:20 s00s wrote: my understanding of this situation is as follows:
1.MoW stated clearly that 600euro has to be paid up front. 2.agreement was done about contract shape 3.Fuzer didn't want to sign contract without consultations with his layer wich is totaly understandable 4.MoW asked for lawyer's licence wich also totaly understandable as this is a buissnes contract and it can not be distributet freely 5.Fuzer faild to provide this licence. In my opinion it shouldn't be a problem at all, he said it was HIS lawyer so I really can't imagine why he couldn't get this pice of paper (scan or whatever) in 4 days! 6.Ultimatum was made by MoW: sign or get the fuck out. 7.Fuzer goes back to Finland and start teasing and accusing MoW for stealing on his fb account
now we should go back to the first point, he KNEW about up front deal and in my opinion acted childish. MoW was no better (even in polish scene it is well known their PR is below any standards) and instead of dealing with situation properly they allowed the shit to flood TL. well done.
btw. grats to comunity for showing what's bad on the scene. EY look another poland account with 3 posts, yeah nice smurf!
http://gyazo.com/29951eacde5eacf6de9db2d2d132ada2.png?1347607374
another mexican idiot.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I'm confused. Wasn't the whole attraction of MoW is you can apply and go live and train there for free?
|
On September 14 2012 15:54 SevenShots wrote: I have two points: 1) Wow 600€ is a shitload of money for living in Poland. °_° 2) Why would anyone sign a contract that prohibits you for 10 years to go into another gaming house?!? Does that e.g. mean, that ret couldn't join another teamliquid house? oO
1. u think propably that we have polar bears on street as well. there is now way you will live in a house like this with food, cleaning service, internet connection etc. GET REAL. 2. read topic carefully instead of writing such a bulshit.
|
On September 14 2012 12:55 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 10:36 Stutters695 wrote:On September 14 2012 10:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 09:58 mikkmagro wrote:On September 14 2012 09:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 09:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 09:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 05:51 Akta wrote:On September 14 2012 04:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 04:01 Grimmyman123 wrote: I only have a few points to make.
For MoW to demand the lawyers certification is excessive. His name and identifying information is sufficient, if provided, and even that should not be required. Simply being informed that a player wants his legal representative or a third party to review a contract is reasonable. If the contract has substantial changes, then this process should be repeated for all parties to ensure the contract is lawful, fair and equitable.
To force a player to sign a contract under threat of a penalty is signing a contract under duress, and in most legal jurisdictions invalidates the contract completely.
The contract should not need to be 10 pages long. This is excessive, and is something from the days of old where lawyers were paid by the word, and would in turn write massive contracts to increase their billing. Modern language and contracts can summarize a rental or residential agreement in under 2 pages, sometimes 3. With the addition of the gaming portion, what is expected, this should only take another page. A final page devoted to resolution of conflicts, default conditions, etc, should take a final page. All pages should have sign off or initial at the bottom, as well as a witness sign off, and should be properly bound or attached together. Any edits to the contract need to be initialed by both parties.
From information provided, some confirmed by MoW - the contract is null and void. Any default provision contained therein is also the same.
In my opinion, MoW owes the player their fee back, based on a per diem rate, and less any other reasonable expenses that MoW suffered ( such as costs of groceries not consumed, linens, etc) but this may not apply as evidence suggests that MoW did not go out of pocket excessively, and was insufficient with its purchasing of food for players.
That said, if the player made slanderous remarks about MoW which are untrue, there may be legal reprocussions from that, though that does not appear to be the case as most information was confirmed by MoW.
MoW is a rookie to this type of business venture. It needs to be clear and transparent to all parties and players involved. This in itself will resolve most problems and issues if any arrise.
I do not blame the player for what he did, and I support it if someone is wronged, and in my opinion that has occured to the player.
I cannot comment on the legal process in Poland or if it is fair or equitable. Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause. If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass. Seems like you ignore that it's mainly a business decision. You can make detailed clauses how to value broken equipment, you can let common law deal with broken equipment, you can cover things in broad terms etc, can does not mean should. You can of course try to avoid any responsibility for anything what so ever regardless of how minor the potential problems and financial losses are, even if it makes people avoid doing business with you. So it's a business decision? Let's analyze the situation. You're insinuating that a shorter contract, while offering less potential safeguards, can be more valuable than a long term contract because you have increased demand for your product. But oh wait, demand is already through the roof for MoW. In fact, even with their current terms, they are currently having to reject people. They are at maximum capacity. So what exactly does increasing demand while simultaneously increasing liability do for the company? Increased demand has nearly zero effect while increasing liability does exactly that - it increases a company's liability. On September 14 2012 06:06 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 04:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 04:01 Grimmyman123 wrote: I only have a few points to make.
For MoW to demand the lawyers certification is excessive. His name and identifying information is sufficient, if provided, and even that should not be required. Simply being informed that a player wants his legal representative or a third party to review a contract is reasonable. If the contract has substantial changes, then this process should be repeated for all parties to ensure the contract is lawful, fair and equitable.
To force a player to sign a contract under threat of a penalty is signing a contract under duress, and in most legal jurisdictions invalidates the contract completely.
The contract should not need to be 10 pages long. This is excessive, and is something from the days of old where lawyers were paid by the word, and would in turn write massive contracts to increase their billing. Modern language and contracts can summarize a rental or residential agreement in under 2 pages, sometimes 3. With the addition of the gaming portion, what is expected, this should only take another page. A final page devoted to resolution of conflicts, default conditions, etc, should take a final page. All pages should have sign off or initial at the bottom, as well as a witness sign off, and should be properly bound or attached together. Any edits to the contract need to be initialed by both parties.
From information provided, some confirmed by MoW - the contract is null and void. Any default provision contained therein is also the same.
In my opinion, MoW owes the player their fee back, based on a per diem rate, and less any other reasonable expenses that MoW suffered ( such as costs of groceries not consumed, linens, etc) but this may not apply as evidence suggests that MoW did not go out of pocket excessively, and was insufficient with its purchasing of food for players.
That said, if the player made slanderous remarks about MoW which are untrue, there may be legal reprocussions from that, though that does not appear to be the case as most information was confirmed by MoW.
MoW is a rookie to this type of business venture. It needs to be clear and transparent to all parties and players involved. This in itself will resolve most problems and issues if any arrise.
I do not blame the player for what he did, and I support it if someone is wronged, and in my opinion that has occured to the player.
I cannot comment on the legal process in Poland or if it is fair or equitable. I'm not sure that would legally hold up as signing under durress, by my contract analsys exposure (which I do have a decent amount of in my occupation in insurance!) has not addressed that whatsoever, so who knows. It's very circumstantial and this case would be completely borderline. He voluntarily parted with said money and with no contract in force to stipulate he would get a return for his money, it becomes more gray (although still heavily in Fuzer's favor, just saying that it's a defense against it being durress). Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause. If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass. I agree that the contract should be complete - but it does not need to be the length that it was, as I explained previously. A few pages for the residential component, a couple for the gaming house component, and a couple for resolution and default component. It does not need to be as massive as one thinks. It is a fairly simple scenario, and it does not need to look like or be worded like an insurance document, which are often times massively excessive - largely because insurance companies are excessive about not paying for anything, and provide themselves any means necessary of maintaining this. Regarding durress - yeah, being asked to leave your place of residence, unless you sign the contract, is certainly qualification as such. Any time a negative penalty is threatened for failing to comply with a demand, is durress in a simple fashion. And I have years of civil law experience as a paralegal. However, if Poland's legal system has this covered in their common law, is a completely different scenario. Contract law varies massively from region to region, and in this case might as well be half a world away. Ok, thanks for the clarification. As a paralegal you're significantly more qualified than me in that regard then. Not saying my paralegal makes me more or less knowledgable than you, I really did not mean it to be negatively tone, I assure you. One thing is that is consistent, is that a lot of what we consider common sense (and common law) doesn't necessarily need to be in a contract. The word "Damages" as an example, when in more minor financial terms, doesn't need to be spelt out quite so much. I can completely understand in the insurance industry why the contracts are so complete - superior court battles for months on end, all about contract language and loopholes take place. Insurance contracts need to be exceedingly specific. But, a well worded contract, broken into specific parts, will do the job nicely for a situation like this. Moreso, a good portion of the contract could be negated, when it comes to things like rules of the house, general duties, cleanliness, etc which simply could refer to a duties and expectations book which can be modified and changed as needed to suit the house and the people in it. I remind newcomers to the small claims court and entry level civil litigation world that common law is common sense, and the court is not stupid - it will always rule to what is fair and equitable. Don't worry I didn't take it negatively. I was very open to the possibility I was wrong concerning my lack of expertise or even general familiarity in that specific subject matter. Only thing is I'd find it hard to buy that Fuzer could claim it was his residence.... Since no contract was signed I would assume it would very well be within the MoW's rights to evict him at any time from their premises. The contract is what gives Fuzer the right to remain at the residence in the first place - because it was never signed, he had no right to be their since no official terms had been negotiated? Once again, it's just what goes through my head. I could be completely off. Not really, because they accepted his second payment. Though some countries do require a written contract when renting a place for a certain period of time. It's a weird situation, because a court would look at whether the parties considered the time spent there with no contract as being on a trial basis (as they said in their own statements); However even so, MoW should have waited for the end of the month to give him such a deadline. Yeah, I definitely recognize that he did give payment. I just wasn't sure about the duress situation. And to top it off, many situations stipulate there are not full refunds for many reasons. For example, in court MoW could argue that Fuzer was given reasonable time (a full month) to figure things out and it was his fault for not sorting things out sooner. Furthermore, they could argue that he is not entitled to a refund because Fuzer's withdrawal would mean a vacant spot that MoW might not be able to be pulled and thus would cost the company a loss of income due to Fuzer's bad faith. It would depend on whether or not the court saw legitimacy in Fuzer's claims on necessity to see a lawyer as well as the time it took him to try to go about this task. I would assume it's more complicated than you're making it, although I still assume, like you, Fuzer would have the upper hand in the argument. But MoW would definitely have a defense to go off of, it's not a slam dunk case... Your argument falls flat on its face for a few reasons. He wanted to stay there and they were negotiating the contract. Even the MoW statements on this put the timeframe since they started negotiating at "a few weeks ago" not a full month. They never sent the contract to his lawyer. If there is any bad faith here it would be from MoW because they told him to sign or leave. If they weren't prepared to have him in the house without their non-compete/whatever else they shouldn't have accepted his money and let him stay. At the very least it should have been on a day by day/week by week basis. They stole his money and need to return it. It is as simple as that. 1. Him wanting to stay is irrelevant. 2. Few week time frame while he's actually residing in the house is only going to work against him, not MoW. 3. Sign or leave isn't acting in bad faith. In fact, it's how a ton of non-negotiable contracts work. Hence the phrase "take it or leave it." 4. You're right, they shouldn't have. That in itself is not an incriminating reason, necessarily. 5. It's not usually on a day-by-day basis. If anything, sure he would be entitled to a pro-rata refund after fronting a chunk of money up front. However, as stated prior, many places do not offer refunds because you refused their terms (many do, as well). As I said prior, they could claim loss of rental income otherwise due to his actions as a defense. 6. It's technically not stealing, regardless of how shady it is and regardless as well if Fuzer does end up even getting his money back. Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 12:48 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 09:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 09:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 09:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 05:51 Akta wrote:On September 14 2012 04:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 04:01 Grimmyman123 wrote: I only have a few points to make.
For MoW to demand the lawyers certification is excessive. His name and identifying information is sufficient, if provided, and even that should not be required. Simply being informed that a player wants his legal representative or a third party to review a contract is reasonable. If the contract has substantial changes, then this process should be repeated for all parties to ensure the contract is lawful, fair and equitable.
To force a player to sign a contract under threat of a penalty is signing a contract under duress, and in most legal jurisdictions invalidates the contract completely.
The contract should not need to be 10 pages long. This is excessive, and is something from the days of old where lawyers were paid by the word, and would in turn write massive contracts to increase their billing. Modern language and contracts can summarize a rental or residential agreement in under 2 pages, sometimes 3. With the addition of the gaming portion, what is expected, this should only take another page. A final page devoted to resolution of conflicts, default conditions, etc, should take a final page. All pages should have sign off or initial at the bottom, as well as a witness sign off, and should be properly bound or attached together. Any edits to the contract need to be initialed by both parties.
From information provided, some confirmed by MoW - the contract is null and void. Any default provision contained therein is also the same.
In my opinion, MoW owes the player their fee back, based on a per diem rate, and less any other reasonable expenses that MoW suffered ( such as costs of groceries not consumed, linens, etc) but this may not apply as evidence suggests that MoW did not go out of pocket excessively, and was insufficient with its purchasing of food for players.
That said, if the player made slanderous remarks about MoW which are untrue, there may be legal reprocussions from that, though that does not appear to be the case as most information was confirmed by MoW.
MoW is a rookie to this type of business venture. It needs to be clear and transparent to all parties and players involved. This in itself will resolve most problems and issues if any arrise.
I do not blame the player for what he did, and I support it if someone is wronged, and in my opinion that has occured to the player.
I cannot comment on the legal process in Poland or if it is fair or equitable. Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause. If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass. Seems like you ignore that it's mainly a business decision. You can make detailed clauses how to value broken equipment, you can let common law deal with broken equipment, you can cover things in broad terms etc, can does not mean should. You can of course try to avoid any responsibility for anything what so ever regardless of how minor the potential problems and financial losses are, even if it makes people avoid doing business with you. So it's a business decision? Let's analyze the situation. You're insinuating that a shorter contract, while offering less potential safeguards, can be more valuable than a long term contract because you have increased demand for your product. But oh wait, demand is already through the roof for MoW. In fact, even with their current terms, they are currently having to reject people. They are at maximum capacity. So what exactly does increasing demand while simultaneously increasing liability do for the company? Increased demand has nearly zero effect while increasing liability does exactly that - it increases a company's liability. On September 14 2012 06:06 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 04:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 04:01 Grimmyman123 wrote: I only have a few points to make.
For MoW to demand the lawyers certification is excessive. His name and identifying information is sufficient, if provided, and even that should not be required. Simply being informed that a player wants his legal representative or a third party to review a contract is reasonable. If the contract has substantial changes, then this process should be repeated for all parties to ensure the contract is lawful, fair and equitable.
To force a player to sign a contract under threat of a penalty is signing a contract under duress, and in most legal jurisdictions invalidates the contract completely.
The contract should not need to be 10 pages long. This is excessive, and is something from the days of old where lawyers were paid by the word, and would in turn write massive contracts to increase their billing. Modern language and contracts can summarize a rental or residential agreement in under 2 pages, sometimes 3. With the addition of the gaming portion, what is expected, this should only take another page. A final page devoted to resolution of conflicts, default conditions, etc, should take a final page. All pages should have sign off or initial at the bottom, as well as a witness sign off, and should be properly bound or attached together. Any edits to the contract need to be initialed by both parties.
From information provided, some confirmed by MoW - the contract is null and void. Any default provision contained therein is also the same.
In my opinion, MoW owes the player their fee back, based on a per diem rate, and less any other reasonable expenses that MoW suffered ( such as costs of groceries not consumed, linens, etc) but this may not apply as evidence suggests that MoW did not go out of pocket excessively, and was insufficient with its purchasing of food for players.
That said, if the player made slanderous remarks about MoW which are untrue, there may be legal reprocussions from that, though that does not appear to be the case as most information was confirmed by MoW.
MoW is a rookie to this type of business venture. It needs to be clear and transparent to all parties and players involved. This in itself will resolve most problems and issues if any arrise.
I do not blame the player for what he did, and I support it if someone is wronged, and in my opinion that has occured to the player.
I cannot comment on the legal process in Poland or if it is fair or equitable. I'm not sure that would legally hold up as signing under durress, by my contract analsys exposure (which I do have a decent amount of in my occupation in insurance!) has not addressed that whatsoever, so who knows. It's very circumstantial and this case would be completely borderline. He voluntarily parted with said money and with no contract in force to stipulate he would get a return for his money, it becomes more gray (although still heavily in Fuzer's favor, just saying that it's a defense against it being durress). Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause. If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass. I agree that the contract should be complete - but it does not need to be the length that it was, as I explained previously. A few pages for the residential component, a couple for the gaming house component, and a couple for resolution and default component. It does not need to be as massive as one thinks. It is a fairly simple scenario, and it does not need to look like or be worded like an insurance document, which are often times massively excessive - largely because insurance companies are excessive about not paying for anything, and provide themselves any means necessary of maintaining this. Regarding durress - yeah, being asked to leave your place of residence, unless you sign the contract, is certainly qualification as such. Any time a negative penalty is threatened for failing to comply with a demand, is durress in a simple fashion. And I have years of civil law experience as a paralegal. However, if Poland's legal system has this covered in their common law, is a completely different scenario. Contract law varies massively from region to region, and in this case might as well be half a world away. Ok, thanks for the clarification. As a paralegal you're significantly more qualified than me in that regard then. Not saying my paralegal makes me more or less knowledgable than you, I really did not mean it to be negatively tone, I assure you. One thing is that is consistent, is that a lot of what we consider common sense (and common law) doesn't necessarily need to be in a contract. The word "Damages" as an example, when in more minor financial terms, doesn't need to be spelt out quite so much. I can completely understand in the insurance industry why the contracts are so complete - superior court battles for months on end, all about contract language and loopholes take place. Insurance contracts need to be exceedingly specific. But, a well worded contract, broken into specific parts, will do the job nicely for a situation like this. Moreso, a good portion of the contract could be negated, when it comes to things like rules of the house, general duties, cleanliness, etc which simply could refer to a duties and expectations book which can be modified and changed as needed to suit the house and the people in it. I remind newcomers to the small claims court and entry level civil litigation world that common law is common sense, and the court is not stupid - it will always rule to what is fair and equitable. Don't worry I didn't take it negatively. I was very open to the possibility I was wrong concerning my lack of expertise or even general familiarity in that specific subject matter. Only thing is I'd find it hard to buy that Fuzer could claim it was his residence.... Since no contract was signed I would assume it would very well be within the MoW's rights to evict him at any time from their premises. The contract is what gives Fuzer the right to remain at the residence in the first place - because it was never signed, he had no right to be their since no official terms had been negotiated? Once again, it's just what goes through my head. I could be completely off. Yeah, pretty much it. When there is no contract, local statute law takes its place, and supersedes most contracts when residency is concerned. So, what ever Polish local law addresses Tenancy situations would apply. Since the situation is "Likely" a Room and Board arrangement, that would have to be individually addressed. Some courts and tribunals do not recognise a Boarder as a regular tenant and as such the individual may or may not be protected by local law regarding tenants. I should add, at least in Canada - one does not require a written tenancy agreement to have a month to month or week to week tenancy agreement. That the first month was paid for and he resided there without issue, and the next month they force his hand with the contract still not signed - is a sign of bad faith. In fairness, they should have given fair warning before taking his next months rent, that the contract issue was outstanding. If they intended to enforce the lack of a signed contract, they should not have accepted his rent - the verbal rental agreement from the previous month takes precedence. Evicting him after taking his rent was 1) not fair 2) not equitable and 3) in most jurisdictions would be unlawful. Considering they let him stay a full month in the first place without a signed contract can't possibly work against MoW, can it? If anything, I'd assume that would be against Fuzer, assuming MoW had made it clear from the start they wanted him contracted. I highly doubt he was under the impression the entire time he was not going to need to sign it. Interesting to note about the prior verbal agreement though and how that does indeed work against MoW.... well, at least in Canada. Makes sense, I guess, to an extent. Like I've said from the start, I definitely think he's completely entitled to a pro-rata refund, I was just stipulating that it was most likely not as clear cut as "this is how it is." I don't mean any offense when I say this, but I really don't see how arguing the legality of the situation is relevant. The discussion shouldn't be about whether or not MoW or Fuzer's stories will hold up in court, it should be about whether or not MoW was conducting shady/abusive business practices and whether or not Fuzer was right to be outraged. From my view point, those are two very separate things. We can go through pages and pages of discussion about whether or one side would win in court, but in the end that doesn't dictate whether or not one side or the other was superior morally.
Isn't this thread a discussion about morals rather than compliance?
|
On September 14 2012 16:34 s00s wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 15:54 SevenShots wrote: I have two points: 1) Wow 600€ is a shitload of money for living in Poland. °_° 2) Why would anyone sign a contract that prohibits you for 10 years to go into another gaming house?!? Does that e.g. mean, that ret couldn't join another teamliquid house? oO u think propably that we have polar bears on street as well. there is now way you will live in a house like this with food, cleaning service, internet connection etc. GET REAL.
there are how many people living there? 10? well i think it should be possible to pay the rent and cleaning service with 6000 euro/month and still are able to eat...
and it would be news to me, that poland is at the arctic circle
|
you were talking about 600 euro and I paid myself that much for a regular 100m2 apartment in Poznan + bills.
6000 is another story and you are absolutely right
|
On September 14 2012 16:43 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 12:55 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 10:36 Stutters695 wrote:On September 14 2012 10:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 09:58 mikkmagro wrote:On September 14 2012 09:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 09:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 09:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 05:51 Akta wrote:On September 14 2012 04:47 FabledIntegral wrote: [quote]Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause.
If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass. Seems like you ignore that it's mainly a business decision. You can make detailed clauses how to value broken equipment, you can let common law deal with broken equipment, you can cover things in broad terms etc, can does not mean should. You can of course try to avoid any responsibility for anything what so ever regardless of how minor the potential problems and financial losses are, even if it makes people avoid doing business with you. So it's a business decision? Let's analyze the situation. You're insinuating that a shorter contract, while offering less potential safeguards, can be more valuable than a long term contract because you have increased demand for your product. But oh wait, demand is already through the roof for MoW. In fact, even with their current terms, they are currently having to reject people. They are at maximum capacity. So what exactly does increasing demand while simultaneously increasing liability do for the company? Increased demand has nearly zero effect while increasing liability does exactly that - it increases a company's liability. On September 14 2012 06:06 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 04:47 FabledIntegral wrote: [quote]
I'm not sure that would legally hold up as signing under durress, by my contract analsys exposure (which I do have a decent amount of in my occupation in insurance!) has not addressed that whatsoever, so who knows. It's very circumstantial and this case would be completely borderline.
He voluntarily parted with said money and with no contract in force to stipulate he would get a return for his money, it becomes more gray (although still heavily in Fuzer's favor, just saying that it's a defense against it being durress).
Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause.
If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass. I agree that the contract should be complete - but it does not need to be the length that it was, as I explained previously. A few pages for the residential component, a couple for the gaming house component, and a couple for resolution and default component. It does not need to be as massive as one thinks. It is a fairly simple scenario, and it does not need to look like or be worded like an insurance document, which are often times massively excessive - largely because insurance companies are excessive about not paying for anything, and provide themselves any means necessary of maintaining this. Regarding durress - yeah, being asked to leave your place of residence, unless you sign the contract, is certainly qualification as such. Any time a negative penalty is threatened for failing to comply with a demand, is durress in a simple fashion. And I have years of civil law experience as a paralegal. However, if Poland's legal system has this covered in their common law, is a completely different scenario. Contract law varies massively from region to region, and in this case might as well be half a world away. Ok, thanks for the clarification. As a paralegal you're significantly more qualified than me in that regard then. Not saying my paralegal makes me more or less knowledgable than you, I really did not mean it to be negatively tone, I assure you. One thing is that is consistent, is that a lot of what we consider common sense (and common law) doesn't necessarily need to be in a contract. The word "Damages" as an example, when in more minor financial terms, doesn't need to be spelt out quite so much. I can completely understand in the insurance industry why the contracts are so complete - superior court battles for months on end, all about contract language and loopholes take place. Insurance contracts need to be exceedingly specific. But, a well worded contract, broken into specific parts, will do the job nicely for a situation like this. Moreso, a good portion of the contract could be negated, when it comes to things like rules of the house, general duties, cleanliness, etc which simply could refer to a duties and expectations book which can be modified and changed as needed to suit the house and the people in it. I remind newcomers to the small claims court and entry level civil litigation world that common law is common sense, and the court is not stupid - it will always rule to what is fair and equitable. Don't worry I didn't take it negatively. I was very open to the possibility I was wrong concerning my lack of expertise or even general familiarity in that specific subject matter. Only thing is I'd find it hard to buy that Fuzer could claim it was his residence.... Since no contract was signed I would assume it would very well be within the MoW's rights to evict him at any time from their premises. The contract is what gives Fuzer the right to remain at the residence in the first place - because it was never signed, he had no right to be their since no official terms had been negotiated? Once again, it's just what goes through my head. I could be completely off. Not really, because they accepted his second payment. Though some countries do require a written contract when renting a place for a certain period of time. It's a weird situation, because a court would look at whether the parties considered the time spent there with no contract as being on a trial basis (as they said in their own statements); However even so, MoW should have waited for the end of the month to give him such a deadline. Yeah, I definitely recognize that he did give payment. I just wasn't sure about the duress situation. And to top it off, many situations stipulate there are not full refunds for many reasons. For example, in court MoW could argue that Fuzer was given reasonable time (a full month) to figure things out and it was his fault for not sorting things out sooner. Furthermore, they could argue that he is not entitled to a refund because Fuzer's withdrawal would mean a vacant spot that MoW might not be able to be pulled and thus would cost the company a loss of income due to Fuzer's bad faith. It would depend on whether or not the court saw legitimacy in Fuzer's claims on necessity to see a lawyer as well as the time it took him to try to go about this task. I would assume it's more complicated than you're making it, although I still assume, like you, Fuzer would have the upper hand in the argument. But MoW would definitely have a defense to go off of, it's not a slam dunk case... Your argument falls flat on its face for a few reasons. He wanted to stay there and they were negotiating the contract. Even the MoW statements on this put the timeframe since they started negotiating at "a few weeks ago" not a full month. They never sent the contract to his lawyer. If there is any bad faith here it would be from MoW because they told him to sign or leave. If they weren't prepared to have him in the house without their non-compete/whatever else they shouldn't have accepted his money and let him stay. At the very least it should have been on a day by day/week by week basis. They stole his money and need to return it. It is as simple as that. 1. Him wanting to stay is irrelevant. 2. Few week time frame while he's actually residing in the house is only going to work against him, not MoW. 3. Sign or leave isn't acting in bad faith. In fact, it's how a ton of non-negotiable contracts work. Hence the phrase "take it or leave it." 4. You're right, they shouldn't have. That in itself is not an incriminating reason, necessarily. 5. It's not usually on a day-by-day basis. If anything, sure he would be entitled to a pro-rata refund after fronting a chunk of money up front. However, as stated prior, many places do not offer refunds because you refused their terms (many do, as well). As I said prior, they could claim loss of rental income otherwise due to his actions as a defense. 6. It's technically not stealing, regardless of how shady it is and regardless as well if Fuzer does end up even getting his money back. On September 14 2012 12:48 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 09:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 09:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 09:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 05:51 Akta wrote:On September 14 2012 04:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 04:01 Grimmyman123 wrote: I only have a few points to make.
For MoW to demand the lawyers certification is excessive. His name and identifying information is sufficient, if provided, and even that should not be required. Simply being informed that a player wants his legal representative or a third party to review a contract is reasonable. If the contract has substantial changes, then this process should be repeated for all parties to ensure the contract is lawful, fair and equitable.
To force a player to sign a contract under threat of a penalty is signing a contract under duress, and in most legal jurisdictions invalidates the contract completely.
The contract should not need to be 10 pages long. This is excessive, and is something from the days of old where lawyers were paid by the word, and would in turn write massive contracts to increase their billing. Modern language and contracts can summarize a rental or residential agreement in under 2 pages, sometimes 3. With the addition of the gaming portion, what is expected, this should only take another page. A final page devoted to resolution of conflicts, default conditions, etc, should take a final page. All pages should have sign off or initial at the bottom, as well as a witness sign off, and should be properly bound or attached together. Any edits to the contract need to be initialed by both parties.
From information provided, some confirmed by MoW - the contract is null and void. Any default provision contained therein is also the same.
In my opinion, MoW owes the player their fee back, based on a per diem rate, and less any other reasonable expenses that MoW suffered ( such as costs of groceries not consumed, linens, etc) but this may not apply as evidence suggests that MoW did not go out of pocket excessively, and was insufficient with its purchasing of food for players.
That said, if the player made slanderous remarks about MoW which are untrue, there may be legal reprocussions from that, though that does not appear to be the case as most information was confirmed by MoW.
MoW is a rookie to this type of business venture. It needs to be clear and transparent to all parties and players involved. This in itself will resolve most problems and issues if any arrise.
I do not blame the player for what he did, and I support it if someone is wronged, and in my opinion that has occured to the player.
I cannot comment on the legal process in Poland or if it is fair or equitable. Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause. If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass. Seems like you ignore that it's mainly a business decision. You can make detailed clauses how to value broken equipment, you can let common law deal with broken equipment, you can cover things in broad terms etc, can does not mean should. You can of course try to avoid any responsibility for anything what so ever regardless of how minor the potential problems and financial losses are, even if it makes people avoid doing business with you. So it's a business decision? Let's analyze the situation. You're insinuating that a shorter contract, while offering less potential safeguards, can be more valuable than a long term contract because you have increased demand for your product. But oh wait, demand is already through the roof for MoW. In fact, even with their current terms, they are currently having to reject people. They are at maximum capacity. So what exactly does increasing demand while simultaneously increasing liability do for the company? Increased demand has nearly zero effect while increasing liability does exactly that - it increases a company's liability. On September 14 2012 06:06 Grimmyman123 wrote:On September 14 2012 04:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2012 04:01 Grimmyman123 wrote: I only have a few points to make.
For MoW to demand the lawyers certification is excessive. His name and identifying information is sufficient, if provided, and even that should not be required. Simply being informed that a player wants his legal representative or a third party to review a contract is reasonable. If the contract has substantial changes, then this process should be repeated for all parties to ensure the contract is lawful, fair and equitable.
To force a player to sign a contract under threat of a penalty is signing a contract under duress, and in most legal jurisdictions invalidates the contract completely.
The contract should not need to be 10 pages long. This is excessive, and is something from the days of old where lawyers were paid by the word, and would in turn write massive contracts to increase their billing. Modern language and contracts can summarize a rental or residential agreement in under 2 pages, sometimes 3. With the addition of the gaming portion, what is expected, this should only take another page. A final page devoted to resolution of conflicts, default conditions, etc, should take a final page. All pages should have sign off or initial at the bottom, as well as a witness sign off, and should be properly bound or attached together. Any edits to the contract need to be initialed by both parties.
From information provided, some confirmed by MoW - the contract is null and void. Any default provision contained therein is also the same.
In my opinion, MoW owes the player their fee back, based on a per diem rate, and less any other reasonable expenses that MoW suffered ( such as costs of groceries not consumed, linens, etc) but this may not apply as evidence suggests that MoW did not go out of pocket excessively, and was insufficient with its purchasing of food for players.
That said, if the player made slanderous remarks about MoW which are untrue, there may be legal reprocussions from that, though that does not appear to be the case as most information was confirmed by MoW.
MoW is a rookie to this type of business venture. It needs to be clear and transparent to all parties and players involved. This in itself will resolve most problems and issues if any arrise.
I do not blame the player for what he did, and I support it if someone is wronged, and in my opinion that has occured to the player.
I cannot comment on the legal process in Poland or if it is fair or equitable. I'm not sure that would legally hold up as signing under durress, by my contract analsys exposure (which I do have a decent amount of in my occupation in insurance!) has not addressed that whatsoever, so who knows. It's very circumstantial and this case would be completely borderline. He voluntarily parted with said money and with no contract in force to stipulate he would get a return for his money, it becomes more gray (although still heavily in Fuzer's favor, just saying that it's a defense against it being durress). Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause. If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass. I agree that the contract should be complete - but it does not need to be the length that it was, as I explained previously. A few pages for the residential component, a couple for the gaming house component, and a couple for resolution and default component. It does not need to be as massive as one thinks. It is a fairly simple scenario, and it does not need to look like or be worded like an insurance document, which are often times massively excessive - largely because insurance companies are excessive about not paying for anything, and provide themselves any means necessary of maintaining this. Regarding durress - yeah, being asked to leave your place of residence, unless you sign the contract, is certainly qualification as such. Any time a negative penalty is threatened for failing to comply with a demand, is durress in a simple fashion. And I have years of civil law experience as a paralegal. However, if Poland's legal system has this covered in their common law, is a completely different scenario. Contract law varies massively from region to region, and in this case might as well be half a world away. Ok, thanks for the clarification. As a paralegal you're significantly more qualified than me in that regard then. Not saying my paralegal makes me more or less knowledgable than you, I really did not mean it to be negatively tone, I assure you. One thing is that is consistent, is that a lot of what we consider common sense (and common law) doesn't necessarily need to be in a contract. The word "Damages" as an example, when in more minor financial terms, doesn't need to be spelt out quite so much. I can completely understand in the insurance industry why the contracts are so complete - superior court battles for months on end, all about contract language and loopholes take place. Insurance contracts need to be exceedingly specific. But, a well worded contract, broken into specific parts, will do the job nicely for a situation like this. Moreso, a good portion of the contract could be negated, when it comes to things like rules of the house, general duties, cleanliness, etc which simply could refer to a duties and expectations book which can be modified and changed as needed to suit the house and the people in it. I remind newcomers to the small claims court and entry level civil litigation world that common law is common sense, and the court is not stupid - it will always rule to what is fair and equitable. Don't worry I didn't take it negatively. I was very open to the possibility I was wrong concerning my lack of expertise or even general familiarity in that specific subject matter. Only thing is I'd find it hard to buy that Fuzer could claim it was his residence.... Since no contract was signed I would assume it would very well be within the MoW's rights to evict him at any time from their premises. The contract is what gives Fuzer the right to remain at the residence in the first place - because it was never signed, he had no right to be their since no official terms had been negotiated? Once again, it's just what goes through my head. I could be completely off. Yeah, pretty much it. When there is no contract, local statute law takes its place, and supersedes most contracts when residency is concerned. So, what ever Polish local law addresses Tenancy situations would apply. Since the situation is "Likely" a Room and Board arrangement, that would have to be individually addressed. Some courts and tribunals do not recognise a Boarder as a regular tenant and as such the individual may or may not be protected by local law regarding tenants. I should add, at least in Canada - one does not require a written tenancy agreement to have a month to month or week to week tenancy agreement. That the first month was paid for and he resided there without issue, and the next month they force his hand with the contract still not signed - is a sign of bad faith. In fairness, they should have given fair warning before taking his next months rent, that the contract issue was outstanding. If they intended to enforce the lack of a signed contract, they should not have accepted his rent - the verbal rental agreement from the previous month takes precedence. Evicting him after taking his rent was 1) not fair 2) not equitable and 3) in most jurisdictions would be unlawful. Considering they let him stay a full month in the first place without a signed contract can't possibly work against MoW, can it? If anything, I'd assume that would be against Fuzer, assuming MoW had made it clear from the start they wanted him contracted. I highly doubt he was under the impression the entire time he was not going to need to sign it. Interesting to note about the prior verbal agreement though and how that does indeed work against MoW.... well, at least in Canada. Makes sense, I guess, to an extent. Like I've said from the start, I definitely think he's completely entitled to a pro-rata refund, I was just stipulating that it was most likely not as clear cut as "this is how it is." I don't mean any offense when I say this, but I really don't see how arguing the legality of the situation is relevant. The discussion shouldn't be about whether or not MoW or Fuzer's stories will hold up in court, it should be about whether or not MoW was conducting shady/abusive business practices and whether or not Fuzer was right to be outraged. From my view point, those are two very separate things. We can go through pages and pages of discussion about whether or one side would win in court, but in the end that doesn't dictate whether or not one side or the other was superior morally. Isn't this thread a discussion about morals rather than compliance?
Is it? I'm not sure. Discussion had mostly deviated from the morality argument it had seemed I guess. Concerning morality, I still think overall it's a completely gray area with both sides at fault, but if I had to decide I'd definitely say that MoW should never have withheld Fuzer's rent from him when he asked for it back. Thing is, I don't think there's many people arguing that MoW shouldn't give the money back, at least from a morality point of view, so there wasn't really much discussion there .
|
Hi guys,
I'm not involved in this situation in any way, but it pissed me off so I've joined the forum just to express myself. Sorry for my bad English - it's not my native language
We still don't know which side of the story is true, but guessing from lack of responce from MoW side conclusion is rather simple. I'm Polish and I would like to personally apologize anyone who got affected by bad service of MoW gaming house. It really makes me sad that some minority, unproffesional pricks can quickly put so much bad light on whole gaming community in Poland. There is always someone looking for quick and easy money EVERYWHERE, so please do not put that on my weird country.
About the contract... I'm not a law expert, but I know one thing. Those "you can't do something for X years blah blah blah" in most civilized countries are empty threats. Contract can't stop you from doing something that is your main source of income - which in this case you can (my assumption) easly prove. For example: I'm an Internet Marketer and every agency I worked for had that in my contract (but only 1 year, 10 is just plain stupid) that I can't work for any other agency or one of the clients they had in time I was working for them. I've changed jobs few times and met a lot of people during that time that did the same. Everyone doesn't give a crap about it. It's just a scare tactic. Lack of training schedule, no personal training, crap food etc - that are signs of bad service. From other side... If in MoW there are some good/well known players, it is also up to them to make this situation clear. If they got paid by MoW to use them as advertising of their service - they are just part of the freaking scum and are responsible for putting other gamers in shit situation. If they just joined the house - why they won't speak up?
Anyway, I hope this will get solved and won't reflect on some of really good gamers from Poland.
|
It's really sad that lots of people say that this drama is because Poland is bad or Polish law is bad or we have all things so cheap that we should not charge a lot for any service.
When MoW started, Polish SC:BW and SC2 community (netwars.pl) complained that Maciej 'kropekk' Krupowies is hired in MoW. They knew him already as not trustworthy, cynical, bad mannered guy that already cheated few persons during other esports events.
I think this situation would not happened if someone else was MoW's Project Manager. Owners of MoW should fire him ASAP.
And guys! This is one person who is a douchebag . Not Poland.
|
Updated OP. They paid me what the owed me.
|
On September 14 2012 20:19 Fuzer wrote: Updated OP. They paid me what the owed me.
Fuck yeah Fuzer!
|
|
|
|