Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cerebral Paladin" data-source="post: 5922095" data-attributes="member: 3448">Standard disclaimers apply:&nbsp; I'm not your lawyer, this isn't legal advice, etc.&nbsp; But that's not what an unenforceable contract means.People all the time agree in contracts to do or not do things that are hard to prove.&nbsp; That's perfectly legal, and those contracts are in general enforceable (i.e. you could get a court to issue an order enforcing the contract if you proved a breach of contract).&nbsp; People can find out about a breach of contract in all sorts of ways.&nbsp; You could tell them; someone else who witnessed it could tell them; they could suspect a breach for other reasons and sue you and then depose you and otherwise gather evidence about your actions; you could sue them for breach and they could depose you and conduct other discovery (i.e. did you send any e-mails about your IRC/Skype session?&nbsp; Those could and likely would get discovered if there were litigation).&nbsp; Now, obviously litigation about the playtest agreement is extremely unlikely, unless someone does something totally stupid (&quot;$25 for a Next Generation playsystem book!&nbsp; Buy it now!&quot;)&nbsp; But in terms of contract law, it could be enforced in theory.&quot;Unenforceable contracts&quot; just mean contracts that have some legal flaw in them so they can't be enforced.&nbsp; For example, if i promise to mow your lawn every week, and you promise nothing in return, that would be unenforceable, because contracts have to benefit both sides in some way, so even if I had signed a big formal document, you couldn't sue me to make me mow your lawn (or to pay you money damages).&nbsp; That would be an unenforceable contract.&nbsp; Or contracts can be void as against public policy.&nbsp; If I hire you to commit a crime, that's an unenforceable contract, because contracts to commit crimes violate public policy.&nbsp; But there's no obvious reason why a contractual requirement to not use information over an internet communication technology would violate public policy.&nbsp; It's a bad policy on Wizards' part, but they can include it in a contract if they want, and that's probably enforceable as a legal matter.&nbsp; (Again, it may not be practical, and they may choose to not enforce it, but that's a different matter--people breach contracts all the time as well.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cerebral Paladin, post: 5922095, member: 3448"] Standard disclaimers apply: I'm not your lawyer, this isn't legal advice, etc. But that's not what an unenforceable contract means. People all the time agree in contracts to do or not do things that are hard to prove. That's perfectly legal, and those contracts are in general enforceable (i.e. you could get a court to issue an order enforcing the contract if you proved a breach of contract). People can find out about a breach of contract in all sorts of ways. You could tell them; someone else who witnessed it could tell them; they could suspect a breach for other reasons and sue you and then depose you and otherwise gather evidence about your actions; you could sue them for breach and they could depose you and conduct other discovery (i.e. did you send any e-mails about your IRC/Skype session? Those could and likely would get discovered if there were litigation). Now, obviously litigation about the playtest agreement is extremely unlikely, unless someone does something totally stupid ("$25 for a Next Generation playsystem book! Buy it now!") But in terms of contract law, it could be enforced in theory. "Unenforceable contracts" just mean contracts that have some legal flaw in them so they can't be enforced. For example, if i promise to mow your lawn every week, and you promise nothing in return, that would be unenforceable, because contracts have to benefit both sides in some way, so even if I had signed a big formal document, you couldn't sue me to make me mow your lawn (or to pay you money damages). That would be an unenforceable contract. Or contracts can be void as against public policy. If I hire you to commit a crime, that's an unenforceable contract, because contracts to commit crimes violate public policy. But there's no obvious reason why a contractual requirement to not use information over an internet communication technology would violate public policy. It's a bad policy on Wizards' part, but they can include it in a contract if they want, and that's probably enforceable as a legal matter. (Again, it may not be practical, and they may choose to not enforce it, but that's a different matter--people breach contracts all the time as well.) [/QUOTE]

Verification