Krzyzewskiville Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 I haven't read this whole thread, but to get back to the first post, I think the gist of what they're saying is that there is an offer made, acceptance of the offer, and consideration sufficient to make the tech deal a binding contract. Is that correct? [/e-lawyered] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krzyzewskiville Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) I haven't read this whole thread, but to get back to the first post, I think the gist of what they're saying is that there is an offer made, acceptance of the offer, and consideration sufficient to make the tech deal a binding contract. Is that correct? [/e-lawyered] EDIT: OOC: I was trying to sort of make a real-world law joke here to lighten the mood... but it fell flat. Probably because it's a Contracts joke. Edited February 25, 2012 by SeasonsOfLove Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) No, that's a particular interpretation of the text. You can see a very political meaning within it. Do not take it at face value. Edited February 25, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 [quote name='SeasonsOfLove' timestamp='1330143435' post='2927894'] I haven't read this whole thread, but to get back to the first post, I think the gist of what they're saying is that there is an offer made, acceptance of the offer, and consideration sufficient to make the tech deal a binding contract. Is that correct? [/e-lawyered] [/quote] Considering they were ghosting the AAs of Gremlins and other alliances on UE's list of approved alliances to do tech deals with, I think they're including ghosting the AA of approved alliances to do tech deals with as they trick these UE nations to accept the money as valid tech deals as well. (despite the inherent deceit in getting these nations to accept the money) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 [quote name='SeasonsOfLove' timestamp='1330143435' post='2927894'] I haven't read this whole thread, but to get back to the first post, I think the gist of what they're saying is that there is an offer made, acceptance of the offer, and consideration sufficient to make the tech deal a binding contract. Is that correct? [/e-lawyered] [/quote] That's kind of what they are saying, while making a very transparent attempt to goad UE into a conflict for some lulz. Did I mention that their gov sanctioned a bunch of their members ghosting other AA's in an attempt to force said conflict? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinoa Rex Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 [quote name='SeasonsOfLove' timestamp='1330143412' post='2927893'] I haven't read this whole thread, but to get back to the first post, I think the gist of what they're saying is that there is an offer made, acceptance of the offer, and consideration sufficient to make the tech deal a binding contract. Is that correct? [/e-lawyered] [/quote] That is correct - the implication is that aid sent with the reason "3m/100t" or something like it is necessary and sufficient to convey the intent of the sender that, upon acceptance of the aid, he considers the buyer to have entered into the binding contract known colloquially as a "tech deal", the terms of which require payment to be remitted upon the passage of 10 days, and again 10 days later should the agreement specify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmansfield68 Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 The old rule regarding tech deals was always like the old rule regarding surfing the world wide web. There are no laws, and the ones that do exist are virtually uninforcible. You get a virus, *bang!* [img]http://ready-up.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/gameover.jpg[/img] Tech deals are tricky, but most of the sellers who would conspire to screw a prospective buyer are ghosting alliances anyway, and in most cases were never full-fledged members of the AA they flew. That's been my experience going back to mid '07. TICN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330131435' post='2927784'] The only reason this has Umbrella's sig is because of the Mushreich's domination of that alliance. A vassal state, if you will. [/quote] I object strenuously to this. Umbrella is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ODN Industries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanore Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 [quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1330172797' post='2928089'] I object strenuously to this. Umbrella is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ODN Industries. [/quote] Umbrella will show you why CnG doesn't need an upper tier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) Well, they have the same master in the end, but you're still wrong Pingu and Lanore. Edited February 25, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanore Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) *Post redacted after consultation from my fungal overlords.* Edited February 26, 2012 by Lanore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330213189' post='2928309'] Well, they have the same master in the end, but you're still wrong Pingu and Lanore. [/quote] We were being totally serious, and now you tell us we are wrong! Calamity! In other news, Roquentin, a comma is customary before and/or after the name of an addressee in a sentence. You owe us a comma. Not one each, mind you. One will do. Punctuation commies are better than grammar Nazis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.