What Is Going To Happen To High-Stakes Fantasy Football?

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:06 am

So it has no teeth ? Still to the un-litigious out there I'm sure it works as a nice speed bump.
Very WCOFFian.

particra · Post by **particra** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:07 am

Interesting that a class action lawyer is now soliciting potential class representatives on the WCOFF site. That's not going to help them find a buyer.

Baker Boy · Post by **Baker Boy** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:08 am

Originally posted by Hells Satans:
quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:
Greg, is rule "29" standard in these high stakes contests ? I mean who reads these things before you sign them ? I would think that most courts would hold that clause unconscionable (particularly, where, as here, the activities are likely criminal) and/or vitiated due to the fact that the participant's agreement was fraudulently induced. [/QUOTE]Even if they aren't criminal Gridiron is in breach of contract for non-payment. Gridiron can put clauses in there until their blue in the face, the player has the right to redress the breach. In court if need be.

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:09 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:
So it has no teeth ? Still to the un-litigious out there I'm sure it works as a nice speed bump.
Very WCOFFian. I'm no lawyer but it would be very troubling if game operators were allowed to run amok and do whatever they want without any legal repercussions.

particra · Post by **particra** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:12 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:
So it has no teeth ? Still to the un-litigious out there I'm sure it works as a nice speed bump.
Very WCOFFian. Whether it would actually be enforced depends on the judge (there are good ones and bad ones like everything else in life), but any decent lawyer would be able to make numerous strong arguments as to why it is unenforceable.

My guess is that rhe primary argument would be that this isn't a contract claim; it's a fraudulent inducement claim and you can't disclaim fraud in the making of an agreement because the fraud is antecedent to the actual agreement (and the disclaimer). That's probably a better argument for the baseball guys than the football guys.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:19 am

Originally posted by Hells Satans:
Interesting that a class action lawyer is now soliciting potential class representatives on the WCOFF site. That's not going to help them find a buyer. what's the O/U hours that baby stays up there ?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:20 am

Originally posted by Hells Satans:
Interesting that a class action lawyer is now soliciting potential class representatives on the WCOFF site. That's not going to help them find a buyer. That is on the top thread for even non-members to see. The thread with all of the other info and promises of an announcement are hidden from non-members. It is interesting that someone deletes certain posts over there but leaves some others on, like this one. At the end of the day, maybe the only ones who profit in all of this is the lawyers, but I commend this guy for stepping forward and trying to help.

particra · Post by **particra** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:21 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:
quote:Originally posted by Hells Satans:
Interesting that a class action lawyer is now soliciting potential class representatives on the WCOFF site. That's not going to help them find a buyer. what's the O/U hours that baby stays up there ? [/QUOTE]If I was WCOFF's lawyer, it would already be down

DoubleG · Post by **DoubleG** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:48 am

Originally posted by Baker Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Hells Satans:
quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:
Greg, is rule "29" standard in these high stakes contests ? I mean who reads these things before you sign them ? I would think that most courts would hold that clause unconscionable (particularly, where, as here, the activities are likely criminal) and/or vitiated due to the fact that the participant's agreement was fraudulently induced. [/QUOTE]Even if they aren't criminal Gridiron is in breach of contract for non-payment. Gridiron can put clauses in there until their blue in the face, the player has the right to redress the breach. In court if need be. [/QUOTE]this.

Ted's Cracked Head · Post by **Ted's Cracked Head** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:56 am

When I went to their rules link, it only listed the first 20?

I did a little digging and found Rule 30 written in Cantonese. It was actually embedded like the threads in US currency and I only found it using 3D glasses.

Rule 30: F.U. We ain't paying! See you next year!

Note: This may or may not be totally factual, kind of like being promised to be paid in a timely manner or at all for that matter.