AP infinity plus one - New AP Statement

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The ignorance is emanating from your direction, my friend.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand how some people don't like Ike, but this is just silly.


He received money; He was not asked to agree to anything - and somehow he's accused of being ignorant for sharing that?

wtf?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignorant to the law, or legal theory.

A signed release is not always necessary in these cases. It may be implied.

AP notified players that they would receive a refund as consideration for AP violating their "fair play" policy.

Accepting the refund may be considered a binding agreement to indemnify Absolute from any future legal action.

Exchange the term "refund" for "settlement" and it should make more sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ban please, for a new and possibly unprecedented level of retardedness. (I'm actually kinda impressed that anyone could lower the bar at this point.)

[Ps3tn0NcYk]

[ QUOTE ]

Stubbornness, like swongs, is one thing, but this is a new low.

There is no court on earth that would construe this situation as you describe.

It is simply not credible to claim that giving someone money (without conditions, ffs!) is somehow going to limit the recipient's legal options down the track.

Using the word "may" does not change the fact that you are being stupid in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stupid? I'm a class-action attorney and deal with similar situations daily.

Absolute may consider any refund a settlement and an implicit, binding agreement between Absolute and the aggrieved party to indemnify Absolute from any future legal recourse.

Again, a signed release is not always required to substantiate the implied contract.

This stuff is standard in the legal world.

With that said, it does not prevent one from seeking further damages, it just weakens the argument.

A judge may say -- "You were cheated. Absolute admitted to it, took responsibility for it, and offered a settlement in the form of a refund. You accepted the settlement and therefore have no right to further remedy."

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Stupid? I'm a class-action attorney and deal with similar situations daily.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am astounded that people pay you for this.

[LuckyMux]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There could have been something in the original EULA...

Could depend on what they said in any email that accompanies a refund....

In your shoes, refundees - I'd ask a lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that we should focus on being careful about things that AP have actually done, rather than creating fictitious EULAs, emails and other documents out of thin air.

You really should stop making stuff up.

[/ QUOTE ]

??

I actually said there wasn't any such provision in the EULA (nice editing), and I didn't know whether AP sent an email or anything else (HTF would I?). The summary was: ask a lawyer.

Not sure what I made up.

[Ps3tn0NcYk]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, Oliver Wendell Holmes. Do you recommend they return the money?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the size of the settlement Absolute is sending them.

For $500 -- the settlement amount for those whose private information was published as part of "the spreadsheet", I believe -- I might reject it and see what develops.

Anything much more than that amount and I imagine accepting the settlement is probably the prudent play, assuming it covers the full amount of the loss.

Ideally though, the aggrieved poker players would form a class and apply legal pressure on any legally accessible entities or affiliates of Absolute; seeking both compensatory and punitive damages

[crashjr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Stubbornness, like swongs, is one thing, but this is a new low.

There is no court on earth that would construe this situation as you describe.

It is simply not credible to claim that giving someone money (without conditions, ffs!) is somehow going to limit the recipient's legal options down the track.

Using the word "may" does not change the fact that you are being stupid in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stupid? I'm a class-action attorney and deal with similar situations daily.

Absolute may consider any refund a settlement and an implicit, binding agreement between Absolute and the aggrieved party to indemnify Absolute from any future legal recourse.

Again, a signed release is not always required to substantiate the implied contract.

This stuff is standard in the legal world.

With that said, it does not prevent one from seeking further damages, it just weakens the argument.

A judge may say -- "You were cheated. Absolute admitted to it, took responsibility for it, and offered a settlement in the form of a refund. You accepted the settlement and therefore have no right to further remedy."

[/ QUOTE ]

You should stop now before you embarrass yourself any further.

[crashjr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alright, Oliver Wendell Holmes. Do you recommend they return the money?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the size of the settlement Absolute is sending them.

For $500 -- the settlement amount for those whose private information was published as part of "the spreadsheet", I believe -- I might reject it and see what develops.

Anything much more than that amount and I imagine accepting the settlement is probably the prudent play.

Ideally though, the aggrieved poker players would form a class and apply legal pressure on any legally accessible entities or affiliates of Absolute; seeking both compensatory and punitive damages

[/ QUOTE ]

I see I was too late. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[The Funky Llama]

Nat,

Done. Thanks again.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually said there wasn't any such provision in the EULA (nice editing),

[/ QUOTE ]
I only quoted enough so that people could see what I was referring to. They can scroll up if they want the full lot.

However, it seems odd to claim that there might be a provision in the EULA and then say that there isn't.

If there isn't, there isn't - so don't suggest there might be.

[ QUOTE ]
and I didn't know whether AP sent an email or anything else (HTF would I?).

[/ QUOTE ]
I find that a good rule in life is to only comment on things that I know something about. I encourage you to try it.

[ QUOTE ]
The summary was: ask a lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]
Commonsense would be far better and far cheaper.

[LuckyMux]

Nan, you're a gent.

Last post before bedtime. Something that's been bugging me about the Mark Seif comedy transcript since it went up. (pg 31 of this thread, folks, it's worth another read just for the 'Wow!' signal.)

Finally dawned on me: He's PMing with AP Support for 38 minutes! Why didn't he just phone them?

It's almost as if... never mind.

EDIT: Josem, I see your point. I wasn't trying to confuse matters, I was merely suggesting that line of reasoning could have an origin in the EULA - so yes, I should have just said it didn't, period.

May I put you down now, please? My back hurts. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]