[ANSTHRLD] Permission to conflict??

radei at moscowmail.com radei at moscowmail.com
Fri Apr 18 09:02:17 PDT 2008


You did give an opinion on the defination of Fraud.  check the last paragraph of your "argument"(Ment in the legal advisarial connotation, not the common meaning).


Been a while since I prepared a brief on this subject.  But case law can be shown that the words need not be in the original contract, changes in trems and conditions are often made, and as long as "Due Diligence" has been done, the contract may be assumed modified if the second party does not respond within a reasonable time.  IE: abandoned real property, if the taxes are not payed or the property is not maintained for a period of 5 years the property may be sold by the state without a change of deed for the owner of record, Due Diligance is posting an attempt in locate the owner of record in a newspaper in the area of last record for the address of the owner of record.  States differ in time, OK I believe requires 4 weekly postings.

Again, I am not saying "We Should", only that the Law is flexible.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jay Rudin" <rudin at ev1.net>
> To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA,  Inc." <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
> Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Permission to conflict??
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:12:58 -0500
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org

>



Radei
Vasil House of the Red Shark
Guild of St. Camillus de Lellis

This we know: All things are connected.
Like the blood which unites one family,
All things are connected.
Whatever befalls the earth,
Befalls the sons of the earth.
Man did not weave the fabric of life,
He is merely a strand on it.

- Chief Seattle




-- 
Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!




More information about the Heralds mailing list