open All Channels
seplocked Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions
blankseplocked The Broken Contract?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Icy Z
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2007.12.18 17:54:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Shayleigh Snowflower
Originally by: Icy Z
Hi Mittans!

Would tha reel mittans please stand up! Please stand up!

Me does not care about no contract.
Contracts r for da lawyas.

Forget da contract, buy me dancas!


Troll spotted.
Don't **** up the bellowed COAD forums.


Crying or Very sad

Traumatica
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.12.18 17:55:00 - [32]
 

If Seleene and Molle were to have a legally binding contract between the two entities then this obvious and grievous breach of contract would allow for a civil suit against the land thieves and tortfeasors.

DaiTengu
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.12.18 18:07:00 - [33]
 

I agree, the only way to fully understand where MC is coming from is to see the contract.

Princess Jodi
Gallente
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.12.18 18:09:00 - [34]
 

I must admit a desire to see the contract as well, but I understand that I have no RIGHT to see such a document.

I understand that the long duration of employment by Bob gave MC special privledges. I understand MC's desire for a secure location to build Capitals. Since Bob rented space to many, I could see an agreement where they rented the space they have under a longer-term lease than most renters do.

I've always felt that when MC took that rental agreement they ceased to be true Mercs. From Bob's perspective, it was dumb to allow a bunch of armed thugs to move into the house next door. Bob's mistake was that the frequent employment gave them the impression that they had an ally instead of a hired gun.

So now MC announces that they wanna do a little homesteading on the land they were renting, and Bob don't have the might to stop them. If the contract is made public, future employers can judge if MC were trustworthy or just opportunistic.

In my mind the only real questions are:

Will others view MC's actions as true neutrality or will it taint their reputation?

Will the forces arrayed against Bob respect MC's supposed neutrality or just push through MC anyway?

Oh, and:

How can I personally make billions of iskies off of this development? Surprised

Atama Cardel
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2007.12.18 18:09:00 - [35]
 

space-lawyers of the universe unite!

Yussef
Amarr
War is Bliss
Posted - 2007.12.18 18:25:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Princess Jodi
I must admit a desire to see the contract as well, but I understand that I have no RIGHT to see such a document.

I understand that the long duration of employment by Bob gave MC special privledges. I understand MC's desire for a secure location to build Capitals. Since Bob rented space to many, I could see an agreement where they rented the space they have under a longer-term lease than most renters do.

I've always felt that when MC took that rental agreement they ceased to be true Mercs. Zebras are hawt. From Bob's perspective, it was dumb to allow a bunch of armed thugs to move into the house next door. Bob's mistake was that the frequent employment gave them the impression that they had an ally instead of a hired gun.

So now MC announces that they wanna do a little homesteading on the land they were renting, and Bob don't have the might to stop them. If the contract is made public, future employers can judge if MC were trustworthy or just opportunistic.

In my mind the only real questions are:

Will others view MC's actions as true neutrality or will it taint their reputation?

Will the forces arrayed against Bob respect MC's supposed neutrality or just push through MC anyway?

Oh, and:

How can I personally make billions of iskies off of this development? Surprised


It's not about the "right" to see it. But both corps have to worry about the "publics" opinion and showing the terms of the contract may help in that end toward showing who acted in good faith.

SpaceHonorNinjabot9000
Minmatar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.18 19:09:00 - [37]
 

freedom of information act gives us the right to see the contract

Westly Synpa
Minmatar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.18 19:17:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Yussef
Originally by: Princess Jodi
I must admit a desire to see the contract as well, but I understand that I have no RIGHT to see such a document.

I understand that the long duration of employment by Bob gave MC special privledges. I understand MC's desire for a secure location to build Capitals. Since Bob rented space to many, I could see an agreement where they rented the space they have under a longer-term lease than most renters do.

I've always felt that when MC took that rental agreement they ceased to be true Mercs. Zebras are hawt. From Bob's perspective, it was dumb to allow a bunch of armed thugs to move into the house next door. Bob's mistake was that the frequent employment gave them the impression that they had an ally instead of a hired gun.

So now MC announces that they wanna do a little homesteading on the land they were renting, and Bob don't have the might to stop them. If the contract is made public, future employers can judge if MC were trustworthy or just opportunistic.

In my mind the only real questions are:

Will others view MC's actions as true neutrality or will it taint their reputation?

Will the forces arrayed against Bob respect MC's supposed neutrality or just push through MC anyway?

Oh, and:

How can I personally make billions of iskies off of this development? Surprised


It's not about the "right" to see it. But both corps have to worry about the "publics" opinion and showing the terms of the contract may help in that end toward showing who acted in good faith.


Also if they dont show this contract this may deter business ventures in the future because of the fact that they may have turned on a client simply because they didn't care for them anymore. If they are true mercs money is reason enough no?

Ar'tee
Amarr
DarkStar 1
Posted - 2007.12.18 19:26:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Yussef

It's not about the "right" to see it. But both corps have to worry about the "publics" opinion and showing the terms of the contract may help in that end toward showing who acted in good faith.


So, seeing as how they apparently don't want to show the contract, probably what's in there would be even worse for their public image than *not* showing it is.

Otherwise, I don't see why they wouldn't have posted it by now..if either party would have thought it'd help them, by this point I'm sure they would have..

Will Hunter
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.12.18 19:48:00 - [40]
 

the only person i would trust to post the truth about this regard would be tholarim

Traumatica
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.12.18 19:50:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Ar'tee
Originally by: Yussef

It's not about the "right" to see it. But both corps have to worry about the "publics" opinion and showing the terms of the contract may help in that end toward showing who acted in good faith.


So, seeing as how they apparently don't want to show the contract, probably what's in there would be even worse for their public image than *not* showing it is.

Otherwise, I don't see why they wouldn't have posted it by now..if either party would have thought it'd help them, by this point I'm sure they would have..


I bet the contract violated the league's salary cap and they'd probably be fined some draft picks if they were caught.

Cadence Redwood
Gallente
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.18 19:55:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Dafuzz
Originally by: Gneeznow
I would like to see this contract, just out of curiosity ofc


I was there, and I ain't tellin

neener neener



This suggests that the contract was in fact NOT broken, and that MC violated no agreement with their recent actions.

avacado mayonaise
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2007.12.18 20:06:00 - [43]
 

*snip* Posting with an unidentified character and characters in NPC corporations in this forum is prohibited. If you wish to participate in the discussions here, be sure to have your corporation and or alliance status ticked in your forum settings. - Valorem ([email protected])


L4NC3R
Gallente
Igneus Auctorita
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
Posted - 2007.12.18 20:07:00 - [44]
 

See now were all saying that MC is bad for breaking a contract. Would you all want to clear your name and show us what the fine print says? Maybe it's BoB's fault. Come on MC, show us how you all are actually the good guys.

Janu Hull
Caldari
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2007.12.18 20:10:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: DrSeuss
Originally by: Elizabeth Fallbrook
This is important stuff, MC. After all, we'd like to know if your organization is reputable enough for our aims and goals.


Goons seeking facts??? I thought you were all propaganda based ?


Goonfacts have more impact when they distort the proper Realfacts.

true enjoyment
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.18 20:11:00 - [46]
 

On the topic of contracts I have always believed that EVE requires a more secure contracting system. Without personal property and law and order presiding over transactions then it is very hard to contract!

consider real life contracts. if I am a water company and you are a man and we have a contract wherein I provide you with 100L of water for some monies, then this is a contract. If one of us breaks this contract the person who is hurt can claim damages to make himself whole!

We need this mechanism in EVE. This way we can have advanced techniques like short-selling and long-term relationships where mining companies provide minerals to producers for some set rate and if they decide not to do it, then CONCORD can step in and empty their wallets!

but to make BOB whole after the MC VIOLATION of the contract would take more than concord! It would take a real life judge probably haha!

UBERSOLDAT
Amarr
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.12.18 20:12:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Traumatica
Originally by: Ar'tee
Originally by: Yussef

It's not about the "right" to see it. But both corps have to worry about the "publics" opinion and showing the terms of the contract may help in that end toward showing who acted in good faith.


So, seeing as how they apparently don't want to show the contract, probably what's in there would be even worse for their public image than *not* showing it is.

Otherwise, I don't see why they wouldn't have posted it by now..if either party would have thought it'd help them, by this point I'm sure they would have..


I bet the contract violated the league's salary cap and they'd probably be fined some draft picks if they were caught.


Shocked

von Goethe
Gallente
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.18 20:17:00 - [48]
 

Oh my now who would trust MC and take a contract with them?

Dangerously Cheesey
Gallente
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.12.18 20:18:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: TrevorReznik
One of the most important events to occur recently is the decision by MC to reset standings and claim Period Basis. Yet one issue seems unresolved. What was the actual contract between MC and BoB? Apparently only the higher ups have seen it, and on other forums there's lots of bickering between people who haven't seen it and those who have.

So I plead with those who have actual knowledge, publish the Contract's details for all to see. Only by that method may potential employers of MC understand what they may or may not have agreed to.

And remember, even if the Contract states that its terms must be secret, MC has broken the Contract already, so this request should not be denied.

Very truly yours,

Trevor Reznik

Indeed it is very difficult for those outside of MC and BoB to fully understand the level of anger because we simply do not know what the terms of their previous contract were. One side seems to view it as a simple contract that could be terminated at any point and the other as an indefinite contract that was binding in every sense. We can not sympathize with one side or the other until we know the exact nature of the arrangement.

L4NC3R
Gallente
Igneus Auctorita
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
Posted - 2007.12.18 20:20:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: true enjoyment
On the topic of contracts I have always believed that EVE requires a more secure contracting system. Without personal property and law and order presiding over transactions then it is very hard to contract!

consider real life contracts. if I am a water company and you are a man and we have a contract wherein I provide you with 100L of water for some monies, then this is a contract. If one of us breaks this contract the person who is hurt can claim damages to make himself whole!

We need this mechanism in EVE. This way we can have advanced techniques like short-selling and long-term relationships where mining companies provide minerals to producers for some set rate and if they decide not to do it, then CONCORD can step in and empty their wallets!

but to make BOB whole after the MC VIOLATION of the contract would take more than concord! It would take a real life judge probably haha!


But if you have a contract system like this, then it would defeat the whole purpose of backstabbing. Say if your a mining corp and you are selling minerals to a production corp for a set amount. If the prices were to go up due to some release of a patch and you still have to sell for a low price, then it would hurt you. But then on the otherside, if prices go down, then the production corp would not like it cuz it costs more to produce ships. And if one of these happens and concord steps in, then the mining corp would be hurt for CCP's fault.

I think contracts should stay within Alliance leaders and not provided to CCP.

But in this case, contract broken, let us see. Cool

true enjoyment
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.18 20:27:00 - [51]
 

I think it is feasible that either MC/BOB/GOONS could be the law. tortfeasors could come and state their case in writing and we or they could enforce the rule of law.

that way there would be no more backstabbing (like in real life you would go to the judge if you were stabbed in the back and ask for compensation)

Traumatica
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.12.18 20:29:00 - [52]
 

If this was in empire Rens 911 could arbitrate.

Lsf XXi
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2007.12.18 21:33:00 - [53]
 


true enjoyment
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.18 21:35:00 - [54]
 

what about in 0.0 where the real money is made (mining higher quality ores)

Rosemary Robot
Gallente
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.18 21:45:00 - [55]
 

The legal theory of "efficient breach," states that one party may breach a contract if that party will suffer a greater economic loss by performing under the contract than by breaching it.

In the immortal words of Judge Richard Posner, "Suppose I sign a contract to deliver 100,000 custom-ground widgets at $.10 apiece to A, for use in his boiler factory. After I have delivered 10,000, B comes to me, explains that he desperately needs 25,000 custom-ground widgets at once since otherwise he will be forced to close his pianola factory at great cost, and offers me $.15 apiece for 25,000 widgets. I sell him the widgets and as a result do not complete timely delivery to A, who sustains $1000 in damages from my breach. Having obtained an additional profit of $1250 on the sale to B, I am better off even after reimbursing A for his loss. Society is also better off. Since B was willing to pay me $.15 per widget, it must mean that each widget was worth at least $.15 to him. But it was worth only $.14 to A -- $.10, what he paid, plus $.04 ($1000 divided by 25,000), his expected profit. Thus the breach resulted in a transfer of the 26,000 widgets from a lower valued to a higher valued use."

The first statement of the theory of efficient breach appears to have been made in a law review article by Robert Birmingham in "Breach of Contract, Damage Measures, and Economic Efficiency, 24 Rutgers L.Rev. 273, 284 (1970) (“Repudiation of obligations should be encouraged where the promisor is able to profit from his default after placing his promisee in as good a position as he would have occupied had performance been rendered”). The theory was named by Charles Goetz and Robert Scott, Liquidated Damages, Penalties, and the Just Compensation Principle: A Theory of Efficient Breach, 77 Colum.L.Rev. 554 (1977).

Efficient Breach Theory is associated with Richard Posner and the Law and Economics school of thought. It has been used to defend the traditional common law rule that a non-tortious breach of contract cannot be remedied by punitive damages and penal damages (unreasonably excessive liquidated damages that are seen as a punishment for breach rather than a remedy). Such penalties would discourage efficient breach (therefore discouraging efficient behavior) and possibly put companies at increased risk of bankruptcy, which would be very bad for society. Posner explains his views in his majority opinion in Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co., 769 F.2d 1284 (7th Cir. 1985).

I suspect that the BoB-MC contract may be a groundbreaking development of the theory of efficient breach in the EVE-Online universe. The people have a right to know! ugh

Val Streth
Minmatar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.18 21:47:00 - [56]
 

I feel this would be acceptable.

/signed

true enjoyment
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.18 21:49:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Rosemary Robot
The legal theory of "efficient breach," states that one party may breach a contract if that party will suffer a greater economic loss by performing under the contract than by breaching it.

In the immortal words of Judge Richard Posner, "Suppose I sign a contract to deliver 100,000 custom-ground widgets at $.10 apiece to A, for use in his boiler factory. After I have delivered 10,000, B comes to me, explains that he desperately needs 25,000 custom-ground widgets at once since otherwise he will be forced to close his pianola factory at great cost, and offers me $.15 apiece for 25,000 widgets. I sell him the widgets and as a result do not complete timely delivery to A, who sustains $1000 in damages from my breach. Having obtained an additional profit of $1250 on the sale to B, I am better off even after reimbursing A for his loss. Society is also better off. Since B was willing to pay me $.15 per widget, it must mean that each widget was worth at least $.15 to him. But it was worth only $.14 to A -- $.10, what he paid, plus $.04 ($1000 divided by 25,000), his expected profit. Thus the breach resulted in a transfer of the 26,000 widgets from a lower valued to a higher valued use."

The first statement of the theory of efficient breach appears to have been made in a law review article by Robert Birmingham in "Breach of Contract, Damage Measures, and Economic Efficiency, 24 Rutgers L.Rev. 273, 284 (1970) (“Repudiation of obligations should be encouraged where the promisor is able to profit from his default after placing his promisee in as good a position as he would have occupied had performance been rendered”). The theory was named by Charles Goetz and Robert Scott, Liquidated Damages, Penalties, and the Just Compensation Principle: A Theory of Efficient Breach, 77 Colum.L.Rev. 554 (1977).

Efficient Breach Theory is associated with Richard Posner and the Law and Economics school of thought. It has been used to defend the traditional common law rule that a non-tortious breach of contract cannot be remedied by punitive damages and penal damages (unreasonably excessive liquidated damages that are seen as a punishment for breach rather than a remedy). Such penalties would discourage efficient breach (therefore discouraging efficient behavior) and possibly put companies at increased risk of bankruptcy, which would be very bad for society. Posner explains his views in his majority opinion in Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co., 769 F.2d 1284 (7th Cir. 1985).

I suspect that the BoB-MC contract may be a groundbreaking development of the theory of efficient breach in the EVE-Online universe. The people have a right to know! ugh


I am familiar with the concept of efficient breach and contracting
that's why i think it is so important in EVE
(i have taken classes on law and economics actually!)

Vaustrien
Caldari
GoonWaffe
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
Posted - 2007.12.18 21:58:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Rosemary Robot
The legal theory of "efficient breach," states that one party may breach a contract if that party will suffer a greater economic loss by performing under the contract than by breaching it.

In the immortal words of Judge Richard Posner, "Suppose I sign a contract to deliver 100,000 custom-ground widgets at $.10 apiece to A, for use in his boiler factory. After I have delivered 10,000, B comes to me, explains that he desperately needs 25,000 custom-ground widgets at once since otherwise he will be forced to close his pianola factory at great cost, and offers me $.15 apiece for 25,000 widgets. I sell him the widgets and as a result do not complete timely delivery to A, who sustains $1000 in damages from my breach. Having obtained an additional profit of $1250 on the sale to B, I am better off even after reimbursing A for his loss. Society is also better off. Since B was willing to pay me $.15 per widget, it must mean that each widget was worth at least $.15 to him. But it was worth only $.14 to A -- $.10, what he paid, plus $.04 ($1000 divided by 25,000), his expected profit. Thus the breach resulted in a transfer of the 26,000 widgets from a lower valued to a higher valued use."

The first statement of the theory of efficient breach appears to have been made in a law review article by Robert Birmingham in "Breach of Contract, Damage Measures, and Economic Efficiency, 24 Rutgers L.Rev. 273, 284 (1970) (“Repudiation of obligations should be encouraged where the promisor is able to profit from his default after placing his promisee in as good a position as he would have occupied had performance been rendered”). The theory was named by Charles Goetz and Robert Scott, Liquidated Damages, Penalties, and the Just Compensation Principle: A Theory of Efficient Breach, 77 Colum.L.Rev. 554 (1977).

Efficient Breach Theory is associated with Richard Posner and the Law and Economics school of thought. It has been used to defend the traditional common law rule that a non-tortious breach of contract cannot be remedied by punitive damages and penal damages (unreasonably excessive liquidated damages that are seen as a punishment for breach rather than a remedy). Such penalties would discourage efficient breach (therefore discouraging efficient behavior) and possibly put companies at increased risk of bankruptcy, which would be very bad for society. Posner explains his views in his majority opinion in Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co., 769 F.2d 1284 (7th Cir. 1985).

I suspect that the BoB-MC contract may be a groundbreaking development of the theory of efficient breach in the EVE-Online universe. The people have a right to know! ugh


Wonderful, a glorious refresher from my strenuous bar exam I shall be experiencing in July. You sir, make my day!

Suez Newton
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.18 22:21:00 - [59]
 

Ya I want to know the real contract the people of Rise demand it.

Kun'mi
Amarr
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.12.18 23:52:00 - [60]
 

RISE were a great bunch of people

I enjoyed spending time playing with them in this wonderful world CCP has created for us.

I know goons have spread hate towards them before, but really it was all just a part of the game. They were great fun


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only