Letters of Conveyance?

[av84fun]

Forgive me if I have missed it in the other threads...but I am just curious as to whether any checks were accompanied by any letter that would set forth the terms of the conveyance of the money.

It would be VERY beneficial to the players if there was no such letter.

But of course, CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY BEFORE CASHING THEM....

Having said that, I would be surprised if...assuming compliance with the oft mentioned cautions...there would be any harm in doing so...

But IMHO...decide QUICKLY...while there MIGHT actually be some money in the IPT accounts.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Roadie]

Apparently there was a letter outlining a payent plan. I don't see where this stops the players from cashing the checks and demanding the balance in full. Since when does the debtor get to set the terms of payment? The IPT in this instance is the entity that owes money - the players are the unwilling creditors.

I am still not sure about the legality of the situation but don't the players have the legal high ground here?

They were asked to perform a task, were promised payment at the conclusion of the event and did not receive that payment. Take everything else out of it and that leaves the players owed money in a breach of contract. Payment due when services are rendered.

I can't go to the doctor, get treatment and then tell the cashier I will pay in installments and expect them to just take it. At that point the hospital can undertake any number of actions to attempt to collect the debt. If I write out a check and print on it that if they cash it it voids their right to future debt I seriously doubt that it does. The debt is satisfied when the creditor says it is satisfied or a court of law declares that it is satisifed or cleared through bankruptcy. At least this is a layman's understanding of the debt/credit process. The creditor is under no obligation to accept any terms set forth by the debtor other than what has been agreed upon.

Which brings up the question of fraud. Is it technically fraud or theft when a person or company promises to pay for services and allows those services to be performed when it knew beforehand that it would not be able to pay for those services?

If so, can the players individually or as a group file charges against the IPT ? I am all for giving a company a chance to bounce back. I am not for criminal theft of services and intellectual property. The IPT generated revenue based on the services of the players through the sales of memberships for the webcasts of the matches. So is it a criminal offense to order services, profit off of the results, and not pay for the services?

The words fraud and thievery have been bandied about - is there any substance to them for this aspect?

 

[av84fun]

Roadie...<<Apparently there was a letter outlining a payent plan. I don't see where this stops the players from cashing the checks and demanding the balance in full.>>

As I posted to Timberly, the working theory was that the IPT would demand a release in return for the promise to pay the reduced 1/3 payout.

That does not seem to have happened.

The other theory espoused by some...including NYC Dude...was that by simply cashing the checks a waiver of future rights would be presumed...(at least caution regarding that was advised...which was/is not bad advice.

But Dude cited N.Y. landlord tenant law which is not applicable because such relationships are governed by STATUTE in N.Y. and most other states...not by common law contract.

I never put much credence in that thesis...especially so long as certain endorsement precautions were taken.

<<Is it technically fraud or theft when a person or company promises to pay for services and allows those services to be performed when it knew beforehand that it would not be able to pay for those services?>>

Your scenario, if prior knowledge and intent could be proven would be fraud and possibly either civil or criminal theft. The civil version of theft...or fraudulent conversion as it is sometimes called takes place when property is wrongfully gotten not by any failure to pay.

But depending on the circumstances AND THE PROSECUTOR'S DESIRE TO TRY THE CASE...WHICH IS A BIG IF....theft of services can rise to the level of criminal conduct. The real risk is stealing such things as power by tampering with your electric meter or using an illegal tv cable receiving device..an act which got a chap in Tennessee a couple of years in the pen and $1.8 million fine.

But in the real world...prosecutors...both state and federal... will OFTEN take the position that such disputes as we are dealing with here are civil matters arising out of contract and won't touch it with a fork!

Regards,
Jim