Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 8884183" data-attributes="member: 20741"><p>I don't think that it will end up as promissory estoppel, though I appreciate that you can put that lipstick on it and it seems to look bright and red and fits the outline. The problem is, estoppel is weak on the remedy side and uncertain (if not poor) in the context of ongoing commerce. The part(ies) who want to continue to keep using the 1.0a will not want it decided on that basis. There's a poor contractual future when the argument is based on promissory estoppel. </p><p></p><p>So instead, it's a "true construction of the contract" argument, with the evidence replete with reference to evidence of reasonable reliance on a particular interpretation to persuade the court that it's doing the right thing and enforcing an interpretation that the parties all understood to be commercially reasonable.</p><p></p><p>In that sense, it's simply an interpretation of the "plain meaning of the words", and resolving the supposed ambiguity and "true construction of the contract" by reference to how the parties actually conducted themselves over a very long period of time. This has always been held by the court as demonstrative of contractual meaning and intent. There is no better way to understand how the parties treated the wording of the agreement than to look at how they actually conducted themselves under it.</p><p></p><p>If that sounds a little like some tautology b.s. -- that's because, in part, it is. Nevertheless, that's how cases are actually decided in court, in my experience.</p><p></p><p>What is really happening in these cases is not an intellectual contractual analysis that leads to a result; rather, it is an evidentiary presentation that convinces the court as to the just outcome. The court then looks for reasons to justify it.</p><p></p><p>It's not about doctrine, it's about evidence.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Steel_Wind, post: 8884183, member: 20741"] I don't think that it will end up as promissory estoppel, though I appreciate that you can put that lipstick on it and it seems to look bright and red and fits the outline. The problem is, estoppel is weak on the remedy side and uncertain (if not poor) in the context of ongoing commerce. The part(ies) who want to continue to keep using the 1.0a will not want it decided on that basis. There's a poor contractual future when the argument is based on promissory estoppel. So instead, it's a "true construction of the contract" argument, with the evidence replete with reference to evidence of reasonable reliance on a particular interpretation to persuade the court that it's doing the right thing and enforcing an interpretation that the parties all understood to be commercially reasonable. In that sense, it's simply an interpretation of the "plain meaning of the words", and resolving the supposed ambiguity and "true construction of the contract" by reference to how the parties actually conducted themselves over a very long period of time. This has always been held by the court as demonstrative of contractual meaning and intent. There is no better way to understand how the parties treated the wording of the agreement than to look at how they actually conducted themselves under it. If that sounds a little like some tautology b.s. -- that's because, in part, it is. Nevertheless, that's how cases are actually decided in court, in my experience. What is really happening in these cases is not an intellectual contractual analysis that leads to a result; rather, it is an evidentiary presentation that convinces the court as to the just outcome. The court then looks for reasons to justify it. It's not about doctrine, it's about evidence. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.
Top