Quote:
Originally Posted by flipya4dinna
Its as simple as, If you break a contract, you are lible for all losses.
Simples
exactly.
I remember on the peoples court there was a case where hero sold an office wall on ebay. villian never picked it up and was ignoring and wasting hero's time. Hero sued for the cost of the sale and $10 per day in storage fees for the product since it was still in his house.
The result was that villian had to pay hero the cost of the wall he agreed to pay for in the auction listing and pick up the wall later, but not the $10 per day fee. The rationale was that the judge can enforce the contract hero and villian agreed to, but could not create a contract that said villian pay $10 per day.
Its the same in this case. If we agree you are liable for the 2k I give you, that is the agreement. In poker there is a customized version of this because you are saying rather than just paying back 2k, you can pay me nothing if you run bad (
in the agreed upon stakes) or pay me some of your winnings if you win (
in the agreed upon stakes) At any rate, it is an understood agreement and I think we all acknowledge this fact that if you either do not play the agreed upon stakes, you are liable for the 2k. This paragraph is our entire agreement.
What people itt are saying is that they can create a punishment clause after the fact because stakee is clearly a scumbag. As much as I love to see scumbags punished, (i.e. Brad Booth), you cannot just make up contracts after the fact. It is simply wrong.
As someone mentioned earlier applying pressure to them is usually all you need again (i.e. Brad Booth apology video), but your best option is prevention. Pick good horses with a long track record of not scamming. It is hard to find, but realistically no matter how successful they have been in the past, there is always an underlying risk they will scam you.