[ANSTHRLD] Permission to conflict??
Jay Rudin
rudin at ev1.net
Fri Apr 11 20:16:45 PDT 2008
Alden wrote:
> What about this...
> If someone wants to register a piece of armory that has a conflict, and
> the person exhausts all reasonable attempts to contact the person for a
> Letter of Permission to Conflict, they could apply for a waiver from
> Laurel (which may have some preliminary steps, like the Principal Herald
> must sign off on the application) allowing them to forgo the Letter of
> Permission to Conflict?
Well, that's one possibility. Here's another:
What about this...
We protect in good faith what we told people we would protect, the way they
were led to believe it would be protected.
I was not told that my armory and name would only be protected if I
continued to pay money to the corporation.
I was not told that my armory and name would only be protected if I
answered all mail promptly.
I was told that my armory and name would be protected if I paid the fee and
it passed. I was told that nobody else could register my armory without my
consent. That's what I paid for. Why are we looking for a way to not
protect armory that people paid good money to protect? The act of
registration for a fee is a valid legal contract.
I realize that there's a lot of armory from people who joined, registered
something and then left forever. I recognize the frustrations in trying to
avoid conflict , but we said we would protect it, and we have to do it.
The technical term for accepting money for a service and then changing the
conditions of service unilaterally is "fraud".
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
More information about the Heralds
mailing list