Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Burt Baccara" data-source="post: 8933575" data-attributes="member: 6990746">IANAL. I've worked with contracts and with in-house contract attorneys.The distinction that is getting lost on many people is there is a difference between a contract review between two parties and an open contract. They also leave out that when sending a review copy, even if the contract does not say draft, the accompanying email (or letter) does make clear the intent.When a vendor sends a contract for our review, it was in a word doc with signature blocks, this is true. It was not marked draft, though the accompanying email always made clear the intent that this was for our review, and if we accepted the terms a final would be sent for signature and that was not sent in an editable format.Kyle Brink clarified the contracts were sent, and it was a click to agree—while also still maintaining this was only a draft. Conversely based on reports of what the publishers got and saw, no one who received this saw any indication this was a draft and believed it to be final, including the dates.At best, if this was a draft, it was handled terribly with horrid communication that did not convey what the intent was. This line of reasoning leaves WotC looking completely incompetent, not just miscalculating the community—a view I do not hold.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Burt Baccara, post: 8933575, member: 6990746"] IANAL. I've worked with contracts and with in-house contract attorneys. The distinction that is getting lost on many people is there is a difference between a contract review between two parties and an open contract. They also leave out that when sending a review copy, even if the contract does not say draft, the accompanying email (or letter) does make clear the intent. When a vendor sends a contract for our review, it was in a word doc with signature blocks, this is true. It was not marked draft, though the accompanying email always made clear the intent that this was for our review, and if we accepted the terms a final would be sent for signature and that was not sent in an editable format. Kyle Brink clarified the contracts were sent, and it was a click to agree—while also still maintaining this was only a draft. Conversely based on reports of what the publishers got and saw, no one who received this saw any indication this was a draft and believed it to be final, including the dates. At best, if this was a draft, it was handled terribly with horrid communication that did not convey what the intent was. This line of reasoning leaves WotC looking completely incompetent, not just miscalculating the community—a view I do not hold. [/QUOTE]

Verification