[ANSTHRLD] Permission to conflict??
Jay Rudin
rudin at ev1.net
Thu Apr 17 10:12:58 PDT 2008
Radei wrote:
> Your defination of "Fraud" is questionable.
I don't have a definition of fraud. I use the one in *Black's Law
Dictionary*. "Fraud: n intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of
inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing ....
It comprises all acts, omissions, and concealments involving a breach of a
legal or equitable duty and resulting in damage to another.... Fraud, as
applied to contracts, is the cause of an error bearing on a material part
of the contract, created or continued by artifice, with design to obtain
some unjust advantage to the one party, or to cause an inconvenience or
loss to the other."
In other words, if they create an error in the original contract
("registration is permanent regardless of later changes in the rules" no
longer applies), in order to cause me loss (my arms, badge and name are
lost), that's fraud.
> "Terms and Conditions of service may change without notice" is a
> standard in credit cards, and other service contracts. Take a look
> at the fine print in any of the terms of service for any of your
> personal "Contracts".
That's correct. And why is it there? Because if those words were not
written into the contract you signed, then changing the conditions
unilaterally would be illegal, because it would be fraudulent. "Fraudulent
alteration: A change in the terms of an instrument, contract or other paper
made with a dishonest and deceitful purpose to acquire more than one is
entitled to under the original terms of the paper". In other words, I paid
them a fee for permanent registration. The paper said that the
registration was permanent. If they change the rules so that they can sell
it to somebody else, a right they were not entitled to under the original
paper, then that is a fraudulent alteration.
If, however, the original paper said that they could change the terms, then
it's legal, because they always had the right to change it. That's why the
clause is needed in financial contracts. Without your signature attached
to those words, they cannot do it.
The College of Arms have always reserved the right to change how conflict
is counted, and how registration is accomplished, but they have also always
stated that, despite any subsequent changes in the rules, registration is
permanent.
> The Service Provider, hereafter known as the Company, reserves the
> right to change terms at any time. Unless the customer responds in a
> reasonable time it is termed an acceptance of new "Terms of Service".
>
> I do not mean we should change the service, just an observation of
> the world as it exists.
The world as it exists, since the Statute of Frauds was passed in England
in 1677, and became the basic model for the Fraud laws in all 50 United
States, is that knowingly changing a contract unilaterally, without a
clause allowing you to do it, in a way which takes the other party's rights
away, is fraud.
But I will back off my original point a little. If cancelling permanent
registration is proposed by people who do not know the original terms, then
that is not fraud, which requires intent to deceive. You could make the
case that if the College of Arms intended registration to be permanent when
they took my money, then no fraud occurred. It remains breach of contract,
however, and a violation of contract law.
More important, why should an organization with a strong commitment to
honor suddenly decide not to honor its commitments to its members?
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
More information about the Heralds
mailing list