The Checks

Sixpack...Thanks for your thoughtful post. Let me offer a few comments in reply.

<<To do that you have to examine all statements and promises made, any contracts that may have been signed and in the absence of contracts, weigh the intentions and verbal agreements between the parties. >>

Right...but verbal agreements...actually "oral agreements" ARE contracts if they can be PROVEN to exist and contain the essential ingredients of any other form of contract. Actully, there are also "implied contracts" that a judge can RULE exist due to the nature of the behavior between the parties.

Regarding oral contracts, however, there exists what is called the Statute of Frauds which invalidates any purported oral contract where performance is to have been undertaken for longer than 1 year (and there are no oral agreements re: real estate transactions.

But as noted by the below authority, partial performance, such as that associated with the 11% checks COULD BE...NOT WILL...BUT COULD be the player's best friend since is PROVES that performance took place. (see quote below...I don't make this stuff up.)

Sometimes, a party to a contract that would otherwise be invalid under a "statute of frauds" will nonetheless be able to enforce it, on the basis of "partial performance" or "promissory estoppel". Where "partial performance" exists, a party who has accepted partial performance by another party under the contract will typically be barred from asserting the "Statute of Frauds" in order to avoid meeting its own contractual obligations. "Promissory estoppel"[2] exists where significant inequities (unfairness) would result from releasing a party from the contract, and the party seeking release knew or reasonably should have known that those inequities would be created at the time of the original agreement. For example, where the party which seeks to be released knew that the other party would incur significant expense in obtaining materials which cannot be transferred to other work, a court may find that under the circumstances the contract should be enforced despite the statute of frauds.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/statute_of_frauds.html

<<the lawyers decided that the current legal relationship (or absence thereof) was such that it could be changed (or created) by acceptance of the payment arrangements. Knowing that fraud will be very hard to prove, the legal counsel could have determined that the safest course for players is to not cash the checks right now.>>

But RC...that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the advice posted earlier by Dude...and I quote.

<<we were informed yesterday that as long as kt and the ipt is actually paying, and continues paying, then the status quo is in effect. For the time being, there are no more questions to be asked, and no more answers to research.>>

That remark CANNOT be construed in any other way than it is OK for the players to accept payments "that the ipt is actually paying."

I'm not sure that Edyie and Randy are on the same page about that...RELAX Edyie...I just need to re-read your post.
But if Randy's remarks convey a different meaning to you, I would appreciate your views.

<<You are the only person I've seen who is absolutely certain that there is legal proof of fraud in this case.>>

Actually no, RC. A review of the threads will show conclusively that I have OFTEN remarked how HARD it is to PROVE fraud...and how costly and time-consuming lawsuits are.

While I have sided emotionally with the players...and my own wallet as a Qualifier sponsor... I have consistently suggested that taking legal action would be a momentous decision NOT to be taken lightly.

Again, THANKS for your views...I will be interested in any responses you might have.
Regards,
Jim
 
Colin Colenso said:
Linda may be gullible, overly trusting or panglossian at times.... I suspect to a similar degree as myself.

But anyone who seriously pegs her as a mole, is either uninformed, unintelligent, or simply a political hack imho.

Colin
Click to expand...
I did not call her a mole. She stated that she had been accused by both sides as being one, which is where my reference came in.
 
I figured It Out In The 2nd Episode

Timberly said:
I did not call her a mole. She stated that she had been accused by both sides as being one, which is where my reference came in.
Click to expand...


Everyone with an ounce of sense, knows that the Mole was Corbin Bernsen.
Doug
( you have to get up PRETTY early to fool me )
 
av84fun said:
Sixpack...Thanks for your thoughtful post. Let me offer a few comments in reply.

<<To do that you have to examine all statements and promises made, any contracts that may have been signed and in the absence of contracts, weigh the intentions and verbal agreements between the parties. >>

Right...but verbal agreements...actually "oral agreements" ARE contracts if they can be PROVEN to exist and contain the essential ingredients of any other form of contract. Actully, there are also "implied contracts" that a judge can RULE exist due to the nature of the behavior between the parties.

Regarding oral contracts, however, there exists what is called the Statute of Frauds which invalidates any purported oral contract where performance is to have been undertaken for longer than 1 year (and there are no oral agreements re: real estate transactions.

But as noted by the below authority, partial performance, such as that associated with the 11% checks COULD BE...NOT WILL...BUT COULD be the player's best friend since is PROVES that performance took place. (see quote below...I don't make this stuff up.)

Sometimes, a party to a contract that would otherwise be invalid under a "statute of frauds" will nonetheless be able to enforce it, on the basis of "partial performance" or "promissory estoppel". Where "partial performance" exists, a party who has accepted partial performance by another party under the contract will typically be barred from asserting the "Statute of Frauds" in order to avoid meeting its own contractual obligations. "Promissory estoppel"[2] exists where significant inequities (unfairness) would result from releasing a party from the contract, and the party seeking release knew or reasonably should have known that those inequities would be created at the time of the original agreement. For example, where the party which seeks to be released knew that the other party would incur significant expense in obtaining materials which cannot be transferred to other work, a court may find that under the circumstances the contract should be enforced despite the statute of frauds.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/statute_of_frauds.html

<<the lawyers decided that the current legal relationship (or absence thereof) was such that it could be changed (or created) by acceptance of the payment arrangements. Knowing that fraud will be very hard to prove, the legal counsel could have determined that the safest course for players is to not cash the checks right now.>>

But RC...that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the advice posted earlier by Dude...and I quote.

<<we were informed yesterday that as long as kt and the ipt is actually paying, and continues paying, then the status quo is in effect. For the time being, there are no more questions to be asked, and no more answers to research.>>

That remark CANNOT be construed in any other way than it is OK for the players to accept payments "that the ipt is actually paying."

I'm not sure that Edyie and Randy are on the same page about that...RELAX Edyie...I just need to re-read your post.
But if Randy's remarks convey a different meaning to you, I would appreciate your views.

<<You are the only person I've seen who is absolutely certain that there is legal proof of fraud in this case.>>

Actually no, RC. A review of the threads will show conclusively that I have OFTEN remarked how HARD it is to PROVE fraud...and how costly and time-consuming lawsuits are.

While I have sided emotionally with the players...and my own wallet as a Qualifier sponsor... I have consistently suggested that taking legal action would be a momentous decision NOT to be taken lightly.

Again, THANKS for your views...I will be interested in any responses you might have.
Regards,
Jim
Click to expand...

Jim,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It sounds like we are in violent agreement on some of these points.

I admit that I too, was puzzled by the seeming contradiction between cashing the checks and not cashing the checks. I was assuming that the root of the confusion was due to documents that I am not a party to.

Cheers,
RC
 
AZ -

Just a real basic question: Given what you know surrounding these events and the partial payments, what would be the most prudent action for the players to take?

From what I've read, my sense is that they should cash the checks -knowing that they're still is at least some legal basis to litigate.

Thanks.

PTG
 
six pack,

with regards to this post, at no time did eydie or myself advise any player to cash/not cash their checks. Ultimatelly, that is up to the individual players.

The attorneys gave their opinion to the possible ramifications based on the statment that accompanied the checks. By depositing the checks, they are agreeing to an open ended payment plan. After 3 months there is no schedule for payment. It's as if they agree that if there is no future tournament, there would be no additional payments. Of course, a court could eventually disagree, but things will have been made much more difficult.

As far as a suit is concerned, i had some discussions with some very influential players yesterday, after they recieved their checks. I was a bit surpirsed that they, for the time being, felt that, in light of receiveing some sort of payment from the ipt, would prefer in waiting on a lawsuit.

The sentiment was that if they are being paid, that there is still hope.

The attorneys are of the belief that if they are going to invest a lot of time, money and hardwork, for only the possiblility of making money on the backend, the players must be on the same page, and be COMMITTED to such an action. At this point, the players are not.

rg
 
To Cash or Not to Cash?

AuntyDan said:
So what's your call Colin? Will you or won't you be cashing the check? Enquiring minds want to know. (Or should it be "inquiring"? I always forget.)
Click to expand...
Enquiring or inquiring can be used interchangeably I think.:D

My Thoughts on Accepting the Check or Not:
(Based on current knowledge and with limited Legal Knowledge).

There seems to be credibility to the idea that cashing this check can be interpreted as accepting the agreement which was included with the check.

That means a change in agreement. Such that they final 66.7% owed, will only have to be paid should another event occur. This could give the IPT a loop hole to avoid paying if another event doesn't go ahead.

Those who don't cash checks, may be interpreted to still be under another agreement which the courts may deem payable immediately or asap. I'm not sure how strong that agreement is.

But legal action to retrieve funds for those who don't cash their checks probably stand a better chance of succeeding if that action represents more of the players, or more of the funds. Especially considering that such action would probably have to go ahead on contigency.

For this to happen, there needs to be a pretty quick unifying of the players, else most will cash their checks and perhaps not be able to take part in the afforementioned class action suit.

Frankly, I find it hard to imagine that such a quick unification will take place. At least one that could convince the players of their probably advantage of taking part in class action.

If I had my check I would hold it for a while to see what transpires. I probably won't receive mine for a few days anyway, so I'm not afforded the luxury of that tortuous decision:p

But I will say, if the IPT is paying now, then there is probably a good reason to do this...and they are not likely to change their minds quickly. So players should consider not rushing off to cash their checks right now.

Lets see what legal advice is forthcoming.

Colin
 
Sixpack...<<I was assuming that the root of the confusion was due to documents that I am not a party to.>>

I am sure that is correct...and I have never advocated that any player either cash or elect NOT to cash their checks but rather to consult with their OWN lawyers before doing so...as Timberly has so often and so wisely suggested.

Frankly, anyone who DOES make a specfic recommendation as to what to do on that subject...one way or the other...whether advised by Harvard educated lawyers or not...is acting in error BIG TIME IMHO.

Regards,
Jim
 
Colin Colenso said:
I don't see how every player contacting a lawyer is going to be very helpful. Except to reduce each player's personal wealth.

Asking 100 lawyers is like asking 100 doctors. You're likely to end up with a range of differing opinions.

Surely each lawyer won't take the time to read through all the evidence. Surely they won't each start a case for each player.

If there is to be legal advice given, or action taken, then it should come from the best possible lawyer representing the players collectively.

But this, seek you own legal advice, just sounds like a legalese cop out, such as the seek medical advice before use.

I won't be seeking an attorney. Heck, I doubt I'd find one in China that could help me if I had a million to spend.

I, like many, are relying on the advice given here. It's probably better than most will get from their attorney. Yet the opinions vary. That's the legal system.

Colin
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree with Colin's posting. For individual players to consult with their personal attourney's would probably be a waste of money, given the considerable disagreement over Fraud and Contract Law (as applied to the IPT).

IMO, those players who won just $5000 are probably better off cashing their partial payment checks now. If the IPT declares bankruptcy, it may not be worth the time and expense to try to collect the balance due them.
 
NYC Dude...
<<As far as a suit is concerned, i had some discussions with some very influential players yesterday, after they recieved their checks. I was a bit surpirsed that they, for the time being, felt that, in light of receiveing some sort of payment from the ipt, would prefer in waiting on a lawsuit.>>

Whatdyaknow...One of my two theories turned out to be correct. (-:

And the existence of a contingency fee agreement was also disclosed
which puts to rest the notion some held that any lawyer would provide such potentiall massive services for free.

I also suspect, but don't know and don't really care... that the lawyers in question had not promised to pay for the significant up front and on-going out-of-pocket costs that would inevitably attach to a dispute of this magnitude. The prospect of having to front such costs may well have been a primary factor in the players not being "COMMITTED" as Randy put it....and no criticism of that attitude is implied. Given the years and the expenses...such a lack of "commitment" has plenty of merit.

The first match goes to the IPT...8-1....wait...89-11 (speaking in percentage terms.)

Regards,
Jim
 
Colin[/QUOTE] But I will say, if the IPT is paying now, then there is probably a good reason to do this...and they are not likely to change their minds quickly. So players should consider not rushing off to cash their checks right now.



i agree colin there is no reason to cash the checks right away. and i know as a pool player that this could prove very difficult to do . but even if you could borrow the money from relatives or know someone who has the money to loan you till the end of the three months you should do that . it cant hurt and if the ipt will contine then your fine . but if it folds you might be protected . because it is only for 555.00 or 1655.00 total and thats if you get two more checks .


i think they should see if they get another check then mabye in the mean time others will gather more info on what to do next . mark tadd
 
Because i dont know how to quote a previous post, i wound up copying an entire thread (oops). As for av84funs most recent remarks here, I refer you to post #46 in the thread "i have started the ball rolling"

I think the post is self explanatory and once again (please refer to "nyc dude" thread) I have been vindicated and proven right, twice.

Wow, not thats batting a 1000.

Av84fun = a big ZERO.

rg
 
NYC Dude...<<Wow, not thats batting a 1000.>>

Right Randy...."NOT"...that's batting 1000. We finally agree?

COOL!!!!!

Let's STOP this.....OK??????????????????? TRUCE!!!!!!!!!!! Nothing I have ever said in my LIFE has been correct!!!!!!!!! I am humbled!!!!!!!!!!

OK???????????????
 
Diamond paid?

Do any of y'all know if the other folks beside the players got paid? Like the hotel, the camera guys, Diamond tables or the Internet guy? Did the refarees get paid, or did they work just for the fun of it?
 
A Point missed ....

by many, that having been the top Payroll person before for a large company, that those checks can be issued with a statement that they
are only good, if cashed within a certain amount of time, like 90 or 180 days. So, to just sit on the check indefinitely could end up working against a player too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top