I, thank God , am not a professional pool player, but if I were, I would cash that check in a heartbeat. Take what the IPT gives you, scrape them off the bottom of your shoe and try to be smarter next time. Pool needs someone not involved in the game to look out for them.Smorgass Bored said:
To all IPT players - Read this about checks
- Thread starter PoptheChampagne
- Start date
Nostroke said:I'm no lawyer and maybe I'm a little stupid, in these matters, but, assuming the checks don't have any type of release on them, I see no reason why they can't cash them.Roy Steffensen said:
The letter indicated that the amount was only 11% of the amount due, and the balance will be coming, so it implies they will be paid the full amount. With no release and a letter indicating they will be paid the full amount, it doesn't appear that the players are giving up any future claims or rights.
I would be interested in hearing why they shouldn't cash the checks.
T
Timberly
Guest
On the notation line of the check it says something to the effect of "partial payment of (insert total amount owed).Rich R. said:I'm no lawyer and maybe I'm a little stupid, in these matters, but, assuming the checks don't have any type of release on them, I see no reason why they can't cash them.
The letter indicated that the amount was only 11% of the amount due, and the balance will be coming, so it implies they will be paid the full amount. With no release and a letter indicating they will be paid the full amount, it doesn't appear that the players are giving up any future claims or rights.
I would be interested in hearing why they shouldn't cash the checks.
With that listed on the check and the letter stating that they would be paid in full, it appears, for all intents and purposes that it's "safe". With KT and the IPT, one never knows for sure.
No one really "knows" who anyone is on this forum anyway. It's all just words attributed to someone just because that's what the tag lines say. It's really more about the content than the person/personality.
Just because a post has Timberly's name on it doesn't mean that she actually wrote it and it doesn't mean that the post has any more or less value if she did. The thoughts presented in any post are what either has merit or do not. Admonishment or accolades for using a pseudynom or using a "real name" are truly red herrings in the quest for knowledge and clarity.
This board and many others would be a lot less littered with personality postings if the personalities were abolished. Don't have any content attributed to anyone and just treat the content for whatever value it contains. Attaching a value to content based on whether the contributer uses an alias or not is like deciding whether cow manure stinks based on what kind of cow produced it. It all stinks, more or less depending on the content. But, as we know, cow manure provides the fertilizer for more things to grow.
Just because a post has Timberly's name on it doesn't mean that she actually wrote it and it doesn't mean that the post has any more or less value if she did. The thoughts presented in any post are what either has merit or do not. Admonishment or accolades for using a pseudynom or using a "real name" are truly red herrings in the quest for knowledge and clarity.
This board and many others would be a lot less littered with personality postings if the personalities were abolished. Don't have any content attributed to anyone and just treat the content for whatever value it contains. Attaching a value to content based on whether the contributer uses an alias or not is like deciding whether cow manure stinks based on what kind of cow produced it. It all stinks, more or less depending on the content. But, as we know, cow manure provides the fertilizer for more things to grow.
Timberly...<<On the notation line of the check it says something to the effect of "partial payment of (insert total amount owed).
With that listed on the check and the letter stating that they would be paid in full, it appears, for all intents and purposes that it's "safe". With KT and the IPT, one never knows for sure.
Actually, while we (you, I and others) have a low opinion of KT...assuming the above is correct...and I am sure it is or you wouldn't have posted it...that sort of takes away from the "pull one over on 'em" theory that the players would be tricked into waiving their future collection rights.
Gotta give the Devil his due.
Regards,
Jim
With that listed on the check and the letter stating that they would be paid in full, it appears, for all intents and purposes that it's "safe". With KT and the IPT, one never knows for sure.
Actually, while we (you, I and others) have a low opinion of KT...assuming the above is correct...and I am sure it is or you wouldn't have posted it...that sort of takes away from the "pull one over on 'em" theory that the players would be tricked into waiving their future collection rights.
Gotta give the Devil his due.
Regards,
Jim
a scribbling on a check is just a scribbling.
Sure some law interrupting judge, lawyer can look at it and say wow this is evidence, that doesn't amount to much.
KT knows this he probably has familiarity with this legal interpretation.
Sure some law interrupting judge, lawyer can look at it and say wow this is evidence, that doesn't amount to much.
KT knows this he probably has familiarity with this legal interpretation.
skins said:
Last edited:
justnum...<<<a scribbling on a check is just a scribbling.>>
You could be correct on that...up to a point. I am not at all sure that a check rises to the definition of a CONTRACT. It is not necessarily a BINDING promise to pay in ALL situations. For example, people who write NSF check are OFTEN not prosecuted because the prosecuters find it difficult to PROVE INTENT...i.e. some people innocently overdraw their accounts and THEN run out of money.
I KNOW that because I had an interest in a chain of retail stores where we faced that particular nightmare almost weekly!
What is check CERTAINLY does though is to stand as EVIDENCE of a contract...one that requires PERFORMANCE on the part of one party.
That is why...as has been posted a hundred times...CHECK with your lawyer....IN YOUR STATE for guidance.
Regards,
Jim
You could be correct on that...up to a point. I am not at all sure that a check rises to the definition of a CONTRACT. It is not necessarily a BINDING promise to pay in ALL situations. For example, people who write NSF check are OFTEN not prosecuted because the prosecuters find it difficult to PROVE INTENT...i.e. some people innocently overdraw their accounts and THEN run out of money.
I KNOW that because I had an interest in a chain of retail stores where we faced that particular nightmare almost weekly!
What is check CERTAINLY does though is to stand as EVIDENCE of a contract...one that requires PERFORMANCE on the part of one party.
That is why...as has been posted a hundred times...CHECK with your lawyer....IN YOUR STATE for guidance.
Regards,
Jim