Pitting Ed Zotti

[Muffin]

So what it comes down to, grienspace, is that you are protesting the amount you must pay to have people point out that you are a dumb-dumb.

[minty_green]

@grienspace

Any lawyers out there who would care to comment?

Sure thing.

You’re a whiny dummy.

How’s that?

[unclviny]

@minty green

Sure thing.

You’re a whiny dummy.

How’s that?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! minty green is my new (temporary) hero.

Unclviny

[John_Carter_of_Mars]

I’m almost certain this will be a wasted effort, but:
In post #43 Tabby_Cat, and again in post #46 Monstre, provided links that proved the following condition was in place prior to your payment in 2004.
(* we promise that as long as you remain a subscriber, you’ll be able to renew annually for 50% of whatever the regular rate is at the time.*)

Since you had trouble comprehending that, Contrapuntal quoted the whole thing for you in post #51. Read it again: we promise that as long as you remain a subscriber, you’ll be able to renew annually for 50% of whatever the regular rate is at the time. Again, it has been proved that this was in effect prior to your payment in 2004.

By your own admission, you failed to remain a suscriber.

Since you are intellegent enough to find out how to access this message board, the only conclusion an observer can reach is that you are being deliberately obtuse.

As some other worthy posted above, you are BUSTED!

@PunditLisa

:eek: :dubious:

:eek: : Remember the “No Fear” slogan.
:dubious: : Don’t be.
Yes indeed!

[minty_green]

@unclviny

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! minty green is my new (temporary) hero.

Unclviny

You and catsix should get together, maybe start a fan club.

[minty_green]

Damn you vBulletin! When I click “Show your signature,” I mean it!

(Sig quote courtesy of catsix.)

[Guinastasia]

@grienspace

It has nothing to do with rules dear. I’ve got rules as well. One of them is “don’t fuck with me”. I’m pretty sure that I’ve posted a reference to that rule many times. Haven’t you read that? should you even be conversing with me without respecting my rule?
Nevermind, suffice it to say thay my contribution to a contract offer is as valid and valuable to the offer made to me (when accepted ) and any other conditions subsequently attached or made generally requiring an effort on my part to access do not apply morally or legally.

“Respect ma authority, bee-otch!”

Dude, this is almost as stupid as your pitting of a poster named USAMA before he had even uttered one word here.

[mcott]

Well, I’ve been reading this at work, wanting to chime in, and now that I can, I find that it’s pretty much all been said.

Except to say that:

Wow! I loves to see me a good meltdown! This is what I paid for damnit!

I mean, MPSIMS is cool, IMHO is amusing, I learn from the Cafe and GQ, and lots of stuff in GD is great reading, but the Pit - that’s where all the action that helps me stay awake at night is!

Thanks for the amusement, grienspace!

IANAL, or your L, but do think your “case” is shit.

[Zoe]

grienspace, was there any promise to notify you personally that your membership was about to expire?

[shijinn]

ah, a glimpse of the intended audience of stupid warning labels.

[Charlie_Tan]

@shijinn

ah, a glimpse of the intended audience of stupid warning labels.

:snort:

[Tabby_Cat]

Okay, just 'cause I’m nice and people might actually think that that email gave rise to contractual obligations (Really, you should trust the Reader lawyers better than that).

All from the link http://www.weblaw.co.uk/art_contract_online.php

Offer or Invitation to Treat?

By way of example, an offer is made when one party proposes to another that it should buy a particular item on particular terms, including the precise nature of the item, the price to be paid, the mode of delivery and the date of paymetn. An offer must not be confused with an invitation to treat. The latter is an intimation by one party to another that it may be willing to do business in relation to a particular article on particular terms and that the other party, if interested should make the first party an offer in relation thereto. This can be a very subtle distinction but is, from the contractual perspective, a crucial one. For example, perverse as it may sound, if you go to the check-out in a supermarket with a basket full of items of food and drink, the person at the check-out, if he/she were very well informed about the nuances of the law, would be fully entitled to turn you away and inform you that the supermarket does not wish to accept your offer for those items. Indeed, the items that you see with price labels on the supermarket shelves are deemed by the law to constitute invitations to treat not offers and therefore not capable of acceptance by the customer. In summary, you cannot accept an invitation to treat and thereby conclude a contract.

Words such as “good news”, “special offer” etc point towards an invitation to treat.

On-line Acceptance

With the advent of the online world, the law of contract has not altered; rather it has had to apply the existing concepts to a new medium. There are two mainstream ways of concluding a contract online.

By Email

The first is by way of exchange of emails. This is similar to the exchange of physical correspondence. As long as the email of acceptance does not vary the terms set out in the email of offer, a contract will be concluded by the second email.

You didn’t reply to the email. EVEN IF it were a valid offer, you did not accept it. If you didn’t what then did you accept?

By a Website

The other method of concluding an online contract is via a website when you go onto a website, select certain items and proceed to the checkout. The issue discussed above as to whether the display of certain items on a website constitutes an offer of invitation to treat or offer is also relevant to the website environment as Argos and other retailers who have made mistakes in the prices advertised on their website have discovered. In order for a company to run a proper e-commerce operation, it needs to ensure that its terms and conditions are property adapted to the online environment, that potential clients have sight of the terms and conditions which will govern the contract before conclusion of the contract and that it constructs its site in such a way as clearly to indicate whether the site is an offer capable of acceptance or an invitation to treat which is not. The acceptance will generally be by way of a click on the word “accept”.

That’s when you accept. When you click that “accept” button. Notice that the terms of contract include

@My user CP

The Straight Dope Message Board is a fee-based board. A one-time guest membership is free for 30 days. To continue posting after your guest membership expires, you must purchase a subscription at US $14.95 per year. As a paid-up member you’re entitled to:

* Posting privileges for one year
* The title under your name says "Member."
* Post count (i.e., number of messages you've posted to date appears with your username)
* Ability to search the massive SDMB message database
* Ability to view member profiles
* Biographical info included with each post (optional)
* Other cool stuff that we throw in later, possibly including private messaging, SDMB calendar, custom signatures, and "who's online" feature

Nothing about the discount there. In fact, my amount payable is wrong, but there is a drop down box with the right amount (for me) there. That’s my counter offer, which the Reader then accepts.
Oh, and grienspace is a whiny dummy. Man, that really cracks me up.

[Muffin]

@grienspace at post #52

Any lawyers out there who would care to comment? Its not like I intend to sue or anything.

@Muffin at post #81

So what it comes down to, grienspace, is that you are protesting the amount you must pay to have people point out that you are a dumb-dumb.

Will you be paying me by cheque or money order, or will you be trying to weasel based on a price not having been agreed upon?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Tabby_Cat

You didn’t reply to the email. EVEN IF it were a valid offer, you did not accept it. If you didn’t what then did you accept?

I did reply by e-mail in the manner offered to me by the Chicago Reader through Paypal.

Muffin, are you inferring that I am obligated to pay you a sum of money ? If so, why don’t you e-mail me an invoice.

Okay folks,I presented this thread on what I thought was a moral issue worth mentioning and affecting a whole lot of other “charter members”. Obviously I’m not getting any support from the rank and file. Don’t presume I am hung up on the money. I spend in excess of $300 per day so $8 dollars per annum is no big deal to me.

What galls me is the attitude that I snoozed so I should lose. As a proprietor myself, I cannot understand extending that attitude to my customers. My valued customers. If for any reason I will require them to pay more than what they have expected, you can be damn sure they will know about it in advance. I can’t help but notice that I was given very short notice by e-mail subsequentto the original loss of charter menber status directing me to an invitation for “member” status. That’s right, after I lose my status I get my first e-mail to resubscribe. How convenient for the coffers of the Chicago Reader.
Okay, you are right. I am a dumb dumb.

Consequently, I see no value in continuing. If a mod could come around to lock this thread and spare Ed from this complaint, i won’t complain.

[ParentalAdvisory]

@grienspace

What galls me is the attitude that I snoozed so I should lose. As a proprietor myself, I cannot understand extending that attitude to my customers. My valued customers. If for any reason I will require them to pay more than what they have expected, you can be damn sure they will know about it in advance.

You were told, last year. You have an expiration date in your User Control Panel. And you ignored the stickies. The customer is wrong somtimes.

[Monstre]

@grienspace

Okay folks,I presented this thread on what I thought was a moral issue worth mentioning and affecting a whole lot of other “charter members”. Obviously I’m not getting any support from the rank and file.

I would venture to say that the reason you’re not getting the support you expected is that it appears that you originally viewed the e-mail you were sent as the entire “contract”. Based on just the wording in the e-mail you quoted, I was about to jump in and argue that you had a point, that this offer didn’t appear to be worded in a way that required you to remain a continual subscriber.

However, it has become exceedingly clear to almost everybody else here (myself included) that this e-mail was not “the contract” – it was an advertisement, with a link to the full terms of “the offer”. Those full terms did indeed specify that the “future half-price” offer was extended to those who remained subscribers – and they were already posted and in place before you received that e-mail (with the link).

If “the contract” was actually the e-mail you received, then you are right. In fact, if the “Full details at:” link was NOT to the thread that has been linked here, but to somewhere else – without the phrase about keeping a current subscription – then you might have a case.

But if the “full details” link was to that aforementioned thread (which I’m guessing it was), then if would appear that you accepted the offer without reading all of the details, terms, and conditions. Perhaps an honest mistake – my guess is that you thought that the e-mail was the whole deal. But, because there was a link with more details, it could very well be argued that you are the one attempting to change the terms of “the contract” (which is what you have accused Ed Zotti of here).

[imthjckaz]

@grienspace

Okay, you are right. I am a dumb dumb.

Finally, something we can all agree on.

[Tabby_Cat]

@imthjckaz

Finally, something we can all agree on.

Hey, move over, someone else needs your username more than you do.

[imthjckaz]

Hey, if he would have repsonded to the emails in time he could have had it.

[RobuSensei]

@grienspace

I can’t help but notice that I was given very short notice by e-mail subsequentto the original loss of charter menber status directing me to an invitation for “member” status. That’s right, after I lose my status I get my first e-mail to resubscribe. How convenient for the coffers of the Chicago Reader.

Wait, wait, wait –

You said you got the renewal notice e-mail on April 25, right? Your charter membership didn’t lapse until noon, April 28…not taking into account an extension for cases much like yours.

Am I missing something here?