An IPT legal primer...FYI

[av84fun]

Oneballeddie...<<"I personally guarantee you will make $113,000 if you play on my tour and make the top 100 on my money list" - if that is binding on that person, not his companies or other instruments of implementation. And if not (I'm on a roll here)... why not?>>

Let me just give you a radical "for instance" to try to make the point that "maybe" is the only answer.

Let's say that the person who made that statement can PROVE that he was given a prescription for...say Vallium for valid medical reasons the day the statement was made and that a doctor will testify that the dosage given turned out to be too high.

Would the statement then be ruled to have been fraudulent. Maybe...but not likely because the statement might have been the result of a delusional reaction to the drug and there was no INTENT to defraud.

See what I mean.

AS STATED, however, and without knowing any other facts or circumstances, I would personally NOT want to be the person who made that promise.

Again...sort of a non-answer but the best I can do.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Roadie]

Or What? That is essentially the addendum to "personal guarantees". The person or people accepting a "personal guarantee" are extending personal credit if they base their actions on nothing more than someone's word. This is where breach of contract comes in.

If I go to a bank and give the banker my personal guarantee to repay the loan and I default on the loan I am not relieved of debt because of it. The bank just has to go farther to collect since they did not require tangible assets.

No one called Trudeau on the stated "personal guarantees" and "personally funded" nature of the IPT financing. Therefore he was extended personal credit by the IPT players whose chose to believe him.

So much for Trudeau personally. The IPT as an entity also made promises and advertised "guarantees". I would think that this incurs some kind of legal liability when the advertisements are used to entice people to spend money on a product that cannot be delivered. But I am not clear on the law on this and proving it in court is that slippery slope that Jim mentions.

If the law were so cut and dried then we wouldn't need attorneys and courts and judges and juries to interpret it. People on the side of "right" lose all the time when the other side are able to either outspend or outmove them legally.

I hope Trudeau comes to his senses and pays the players and then either folds up shop or offer them a true and solid plan for going forward. Better than a huge legal fight with a quite uncertain outcome. I do believe however that the players owe it to themselves to fight for what is owed them. Even if they found a way to pony up $500 apiece on average then it would still be enough to put some signifigant legal pressure on Trudeau.

 

[ironman]

I learned long ago that Milton Berle, George Burns, Bob Hope, etc. lived very long lives, due to their sense of humor and good mood (and Millions of dollars )...
I'm trying to laugh my way to 100.
Doug
( unfortunately, my diet is trying to take me out before retirement age )
( btw, if you've been unemployed your whole life, can you still retire (and from WHAT ? )

Now I understand.

From what i read, before we start that exercise with nails, we should pratice abit on concrete.

 

[Deadon]

Eddie;

The answer to your question was contained in the earlier stuff, but probably too much lawyerspeak.

What you ask is really two questions.

1. Is this a valid guarantee?

2. Is his promise/guarentee enforceable against KT personally?

The answer to 1 is yes, as long as the people making the claim have relied on that represetation to their detriment.

The answer to 2 is more complex, and perhaps more important. When the person in charge of a business makes a representation, you have to consider if they are speaking for the business or for themselves. Personal guarantee in the business context could easily be understood to mean either KT himself or the president of IPT. Its a fuzzy distinction. It all goes back to what I said about the business structure. KT would surely claim that his guarantee was on behalf of the IPT. The personal guarantee statement is not nearly as strong as his representation of the funding for 2 years was already on the light. Also remember that there isn't any promise until the condition, "make the top 100 on my money list", was met, and with the tour at a halt, perhaps it cannot be met. Food for thought, and yes we look at more detail, because if we don't, someone will feed us our heads.

Mike

 

[Peter E]

First, I am a life long lover of pool and fairly new to AZ Forums. Great website and a wealth of information.

That being said, i've been reading the IPT forum in shock, amazement...etc. since the nonpayment issue surfaced.

I do have a question for the legal experts. Should some people actually receive "partial payment" checks and want to cash them, isn't a notation written by the person cashing the check a way to document that it is a "partial payment"?

As an example, say player A is owed $5000 and receives a check for $500. By writing on the check prior to cashing it "payment in part for $5000, $4500 remaining to be paid" a way to avoid the tactic suspected in reducing the obligation from IPT?

Just a thought.

Peter

 

[oneballeddie]

Thanks Deadon

Eddie;

The answer to your question was contained in the earlier stuff, but probably too much lawyerspeak.

What you ask is really two questions.

1. Is this a valid guarantee?

2. Is his promise/guarentee enforceable against KT personally?

The answer to 1 is yes, as long as the people making the claim have relied on that represetation to their detriment.

The answer to 2 is more complex, and perhaps more important. When the person in charge of a business makes a representation, you have to consider if they are speaking for the business or for themselves. Personal guarantee in the business context could easily be understood to mean either KT himself or the president of IPT. Its a fuzzy distinction. It all goes back to what I said about the business structure. KT would surely claim that his guarantee was on behalf of the IPT. The personal guarantee statement is not nearly as strong as his representation of the funding for 2 years was already on the light. Also remember that there isn't any promise until the condition, "make the top 100 on my money list", was met, and with the tour at a halt, perhaps it cannot be met. Food for thought, and yes we look at more detail, because if we don't, someone will feed us our heads.

Mike

I think when he started the tour everybody wondered where the "playing for millions" would come from. I think he made it clear that he was personally funding the IPT for two years. And he promised he would do it. His millions made the promise credible - not the grandioise delusional "business plan" behind it. It would be interesting to know, and we'll never know, how many people would have played in qualifiers, given up day jobs, sponsored players at $000's a month, etc. if he had said "If our business plan succeeds I guarantee everybody will make at least $113,000 in their first two years." I suspect the Vegas and Reno qualifiers would not have been affected much because nobody knew whether those participants would or would not be on the money list for 2007 anyway. But I bet the other qualifiers would have been drastically reduced. And certainly sponsors would have thought twice about contracting to pay players a salary for two years on the hope the IPT could fund some tournaments.

Also, I had a third question:

3. If players agree to the payment plan, does a subsequent bankruptcy remove any of his personal obligations or claims of fraud? In other words, do the players have anything to lose by cashing the first check (with the obvious "partial payment of amount owed" endorsement)?

 

[oneballeddie]

Thanks for Clarification AV

Oneballeddie...<<"I personally guarantee you will make $113,000 if you play on my tour and make the top 100 on my money list" - if that is binding on that person, not his companies or other instruments of implementation. And if not (I'm on a roll here)... why not?>>

Let me just give you a radical "for instance" to try to make the point that "maybe" is the only answer.

Let's say that the person who made that statement can PROVE that he was given a prescription for...say Vallium for valid medical reasons the day the statement was made and that a doctor will testify that the dosage given turned out to be too high.

Would the statement then be ruled to have been fraudulent. Maybe...but not likely because the statement might have been the result of a delusional reaction to the drug and there was no INTENT to defraud.

See what I mean.

AS STATED, however, and without knowing any other facts or circumstances, I would personally NOT want to be the person who made that promise.

Again...sort of a non-answer but the best I can do.

Regards,
Jim

His promises were not a one time slip of the tongue or the misdeeds of somebody who ate too many twinkies. He reinforced this promise in every players meeting and in writing on the website. However, I am sure he will have no difficulty proving he was mentally defective at the time he made the promises. Maybe he'll get institutionalized after the trial. But I have never heard of it being used as an affirmative defense in a breach of contract situation. Got any case references? I tried to Google it but I was laughing so hard I could not type it without typo: "Insanity or diminished capacity as an affirmative defense in breach of contract actions". My dog had to type that one.

 

[jimmyg]

But I have never heard of it being used as an affirmative defense in a breach of contract situation. Got any case references? I tried to Google it but I was laughing so hard I could not type it without typo: "Insanity or diminished capacity as an affirmative defense in breach of contract actions". My dog had to type that one.

Competent Parties, is one of the key elements of a legally binding contract.

Jim

 

[Deadon]

Also, I had a third question:

3. If players agree to the payment plan, does a subsequent bankruptcy remove any of his personal obligations or claims of fraud? In other words, do the players have anything to lose by cashing the first check (with the obvious "partial payment of amount owed" endorsement)?

Without difinitive information, only general ideas can be passed along. Taking that into consideration; If you agree to take payments on the full amount owed, that agreement is cashing the check, then as along as nothing is signed, you are only allowing him to make payments. Unless he failed to pay, you couldn't do much. Its only when you start accepting lesser amounts and/or signing agreements that you began to have serious problems. Realize that this applies only to people that are seeking payment from tournament winnings. Other claims, such as promises of future income, would be a different issue.

I don't belive that accepting payment in full over time would affect the ability to follow-up with fraud allegations should he file bankruptcy.