Term Interpretation Consultancy

If playing in RoO is half as entertaining as their forum game is, it must be the most entertaining kd to play in..like ever

Last age was pretty intense if you're into watching people argue and be dicks to each other.

Well we are on the internet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Last age was pretty intense if you're into watching people argue and be dicks to each other.

---

So playing in RoO is pretty much like watching Ex on the beach or Paradise Hotel? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shai

So playing in RoO is pretty much like watching Ex on the beach or Paradise Hotel? :P

---

Without the hot girls and no sex. :( Apparently the winner from latest Paradise Hotel is from Jkpg..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Without the hot girls and no sex. :( Apparently the winner from latest Paradise Hotel is from Jkpg..

---

lol really? Probs to young to know who it is thou. Had it been 15 years ago...:P

Got meself a big cup of tea to read this wall of text in the hopes that it would be entertaining. For the most part, it didn't live up to expectations, however..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ovenmitt

[22:34] <Ovenmitt> yea, we just assumed ms on both sides
[22:35] <Ovenmitt> although we can mitigate ms for the most part
[22:35] <Ovenmitt> pretty easy
[22:35] <AquaSeaFoam> i think you underestimate halfling marquis
[22:35] <Ovenmitt> between MA and sabotage
[22:35] <AquaSeaFoam> they are pretty decent
[22:35] <Ovenmitt> MA bot is troll vs a single mystic
[22:35] <Ovenmitt> but thats neither here nor there
[22:35] <AquaSeaFoam> bot?
[22:36] <Ovenmitt> sure, you've never used an ma script?
[22:36] <AquaSeaFoam> nope
[22:36] <Ovenmitt> basically it autoscans news and applies ma on a spell fail

---

Dunno really, but this kind of looks like something the admins should look into. This same idea of an MA bot did cross my mind multiple times, but I was too lazy to implement it.. and these guys seem to have found the time! Should be given a prize maybe? How about deletions? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shai

lol really? Probs to young to know who it is thou. Had it been 15 years ago...:P

---

Yea, some blond chick a 92:a

https://www.instagram.com/lisamariajonsson/

On a sidenote, i just saw this :( http://www.sydsvenskan.se/2017-05-11...utik-i-konkurs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exxo

Got meself a big cup of tea to read this wall of text in the hopes that it would be entertaining. For the most part, it didn't live up to expectations, however..



Dunno really, but this kind of looks like something the admins should look into. This same idea of an MA bot did cross my mind multiple times, but I was too lazy to implement it.. and these guys seem to have found the time! Should be given a prize maybe? How about deletions? :)

---

I can guarantee you if there was any cheating going on in the kd Bishop would have deleted it asap just ask Mike ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Yea, some blond chick a 92:a

https://www.instagram.com/lisamariajonsson/

On a sidenote, i just saw this :( http://www.sydsvenskan.se/2017-05-11...utik-i-konkurs





I can guarantee you if there was any cheating going on in the kd Bishop would have deleted it asap just ask Mike ;)

---

That sucks! I buy my wraps from their green deli at saluhallen like twice a week!

I actually know the lawyer Martin, handling the bankruptcy. He's a fellow Smålänning from Waggeryd. We do network dinners, hockey games etc now and then. He better make sure someone takes over and keep the business running. I'm addicted to those wraps! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shai

That sucks! I buy my wraps from their green deli at saluhallen like twice a week!

I actually know the lawyer Martin, handling the bankruptcy. He's a fellow Smålänning from Waggeryd. We do network dinners, hockey games etc now and then. He better make sure someone takes over and keep the business running. I'm addicted to those wraps! :p

---

I think they have different owners though seems like Widerbergs sold the Deli last year. So probably dont have to worry :P

lol one big troll from ovenmitt, a script lol ovenmitt cant even work the munk bot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

I think they have different owners though seems like Widerbergs sold the Deli last year. So probably dont have to worry :P

---

Woohooo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chanain

Alright, here it is. I'm not licensed to practice in the World of Utopia, but what the hey. Let me know where to send my invoice.

Bart: Denial that 'interpretation' is required suggests that you don't actually understand how language works generally, much less contract language specifically. Interpretation is the process by which we ascribe meaning to words. Period. All contracts require interpretation. Issues tend to arise when people disagree as to the interpretation, and, moreover, when more than one interpretation is possible. What you're *really* asserting is that you maintain a specific interpretation of the language, and that you believe it's the only reasonable interpretation.

ASF: What you're talking about, when you want to bring in previous discussions to inform the spirit and intent of the agreement, you're referring to what we lawyers call 'parol evidence'. You can google the "Parol Evidence Rule" - and ignore anyone who spells it "Parole" - but the general idea is this: When interpreting a contract, we look to what's on the face of the contract, unless there are ambiguities on the face of the contract, in which parol evidence can be used to resolve those ambiguities.

If Bart were right that the terms are, on their face, unambiguously in his favour, then your context-based argument would have no real place.

And if he's wrong, and there is ambiguity (say, as regards the meaning of "compete"), then I don't think parol evidence is what you would want to look at. Bart's real problem, if I assume correctly that he was the one who crafted the language he's now relying upon, is a different legal interpretive doctrine: Contra proferentem - an ambiguity will be resolved against the interest of the one who drafted the language. This is a frequently-used rule of interpretation, basically incentivizing the side drafting the language to be as clear as possible, and ensuring that the language won't be left deliberately vague in order to leave open a favourable (to the drafter) course of action not apparently contemplated within the language of the contract. Which, really, appears to be *exactly* what Bart has done here.

So the first big question is what it means for Sparta to agree not to 'compete'. It seems to me that, without more, the concept of competition is sufficiently broad to capture the kind of scheming that ASF has alleged. It's a broad term, certainly. But the interesting question from a 'legal interpretation' point of view is the impact of the rather irregular parenthetical comments afterward: Are they in the nature of 'limiting language', restricting the broad language of 'competition' specifically to the contents of the parentheses? Or are they simply an interpretive guide as to how specific factual scenarios will be handled? This will be at the core of the interpretive dispute here.

Bart's position (if I may read it generously) is ultimately that the parenthetical remarks are impliedly limiting. I don't see that as being evident on the face of the language, and in fact I think that this position runs awry of the Whole Agreement rule of contract interpretation, as it would render the non-parenthetical language in clause 3 totally inoperative. So I don't think that position is sustainable. Even it were sustainable, however, the absence of express limiting language (i.e. stating that Sparta's obligation not to compete extends no further than the contents of the parenthetical remark) certainly leaves open the competing interpretation, that Sparta is assuming a much more expansive obligation not to compete.

So, in my view, the language unambiguously supports ASF's position. In the alternative, the interplay between the parenthetical remark and the non-parenthetical remark may create an ambiguity, but such ambiguity would still be resolved in ASF's favour, by reason of the doctrine of contra proferentem.

---

Thanks for the legal insight! Ahem, invoice the thread's original poster ;)

So you're saying it's a deal break?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LHAlcrTRA

I'm Uncle Rico, figuratively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exxo

Got meself a big cup of tea to read this wall of text in the hopes that it would be entertaining. For the most part, it didn't live up to expectations, however..



Dunno really, but this kind of looks like something the admins should look into. This same idea of an MA bot did cross my mind multiple times, but I was too lazy to implement it.. and these guys seem to have found the time! Should be given a prize maybe? How about deletions? :)

---

i think they have already done some preventative work already in light of this i.e. reCAPTCHA ... its just only now that the cats out the bag is how we know about it