Originally by: Princess Jodi

---

I must admit a desire to see the contract as well, but I understand that I have no RIGHT to see such a document.

I understand that the long duration of employment by Bob gave MC special privledges. I understand MC's desire for a secure location to build Capitals. Since Bob rented space to many, I could see an agreement where they rented the space they have under a longer-term lease than most renters do.

I've always felt that when MC took that rental agreement they ceased to be true Mercs. Zebras are hawt. From Bob's perspective, it was dumb to allow a bunch of armed thugs to move into the house next door. Bob's mistake was that the frequent employment gave them the impression that they had an ally instead of a hired gun.

So now MC announces that they wanna do a little homesteading on the land they were renting, and Bob don't have the might to stop them. If the contract is made public, future employers can judge if MC were trustworthy or just opportunistic.

In my mind the only real questions are:

Will others view MC's actions as true neutrality or will it taint their reputation?

Will the forces arrayed against Bob respect MC's supposed neutrality or just push through MC anyway?

Oh, and:

How can I personally make billions of iskies off of this development?

---

Originally by: Yussef

---

Originally by: Princess Jodi

---

I must admit a desire to see the contract as well, but I understand that I have no RIGHT to see such a document.

I understand that the long duration of employment by Bob gave MC special privledges. I understand MC's desire for a secure location to build Capitals. Since Bob rented space to many, I could see an agreement where they rented the space they have under a longer-term lease than most renters do.

I've always felt that when MC took that rental agreement they ceased to be true Mercs. Zebras are hawt. From Bob's perspective, it was dumb to allow a bunch of armed thugs to move into the house next door. Bob's mistake was that the frequent employment gave them the impression that they had an ally instead of a hired gun.

So now MC announces that they wanna do a little homesteading on the land they were renting, and Bob don't have the might to stop them. If the contract is made public, future employers can judge if MC were trustworthy or just opportunistic.

In my mind the only real questions are:

Will others view MC's actions as true neutrality or will it taint their reputation?

Will the forces arrayed against Bob respect MC's supposed neutrality or just push through MC anyway?

Oh, and:

How can I personally make billions of iskies off of this development?

---

It's not about the "right" to see it. But both corps have to worry about the "publics" opinion and showing the terms of the contract may help in that end toward showing who acted in good faith.

---

Originally by: Yussef

---

It's not about the "right" to see it. But both corps have to worry about the "publics" opinion and showing the terms of the contract may help in that end toward showing who acted in good faith.

---

Originally by: Ar'tee

---

Originally by: Yussef

---

It's not about the "right" to see it. But both corps have to worry about the "publics" opinion and showing the terms of the contract may help in that end toward showing who acted in good faith.

---

So, seeing as how they apparently don't want to show the contract, probably what's in there would be even worse for their public image than *not* showing it is.

Otherwise, I don't see why they wouldn't have posted it by now..if either party would have thought it'd help them, by this point I'm sure they would have..

---

Originally by: Dafuzz

---

Originally by: Gneeznow

---

I would like to see this contract, just out of curiosity ofc

---

I was there, and I ain't tellin

neener neener

---

Originally by: DrSeuss

---

Originally by: Elizabeth Fallbrook

---

This is important stuff, MC. After all, we'd like to know if your organization is reputable enough for our aims and goals.

---

Goons seeking facts??? I thought you were all propaganda based ?

---

Originally by: Traumatica

---

Originally by: Ar'tee

---

Originally by: Yussef

---

It's not about the "right" to see it. But both corps have to worry about the "publics" opinion and showing the terms of the contract may help in that end toward showing who acted in good faith.

---

So, seeing as how they apparently don't want to show the contract, probably what's in there would be even worse for their public image than *not* showing it is.

Otherwise, I don't see why they wouldn't have posted it by now..if either party would have thought it'd help them, by this point I'm sure they would have..

---

I bet the contract violated the league's salary cap and they'd probably be fined some draft picks if they were caught.

---

Originally by: TrevorReznik

---

One of the most important events to occur recently is the decision by MC to reset standings and claim Period Basis. Yet one issue seems unresolved. What was the actual contract between MC and BoB? Apparently only the higher ups have seen it, and on other forums there's lots of bickering between people who haven't seen it and those who have.

So I plead with those who have actual knowledge, publish the Contract's details for all to see. Only by that method may potential employers of MC understand what they may or may not have agreed to.

And remember, even if the Contract states that its terms must be secret, MC has broken the Contract already, so this request should not be denied.

Very truly yours,

Trevor Reznik

---

Originally by: true enjoyment

---

On the topic of contracts I have always believed that EVE requires a more secure contracting system. Without personal property and law and order presiding over transactions then it is very hard to contract!

consider real life contracts. if I am a water company and you are a man and we have a contract wherein I provide you with 100L of water for some monies, then this is a contract. If one of us breaks this contract the person who is hurt can claim damages to make himself whole!

We need this mechanism in EVE. This way we can have advanced techniques like short-selling and long-term relationships where mining companies provide minerals to producers for some set rate and if they decide not to do it, then CONCORD can step in and empty their wallets!

but to make BOB whole after the MC VIOLATION of the contract would take more than concord! It would take a real life judge probably haha!

---

Originally by: Rosemary Robot

---

The legal theory of "efficient breach," states that one party may breach a contract if that party will suffer a greater economic loss by performing under the contract than by breaching it.

In the immortal words of Judge Richard Posner, "Suppose I sign a contract to deliver 100,000 custom-ground widgets at $.10 apiece to A, for use in his boiler factory. After I have delivered 10,000, B comes to me, explains that he desperately needs 25,000 custom-ground widgets at once since otherwise he will be forced to close his pianola factory at great cost, and offers me $.15 apiece for 25,000 widgets. I sell him the widgets and as a result do not complete timely delivery to A, who sustains $1000 in damages from my breach. Having obtained an additional profit of $1250 on the sale to B, I am better off even after reimbursing A for his loss. Society is also better off. Since B was willing to pay me $.15 per widget, it must mean that each widget was worth at least $.15 to him. But it was worth only $.14 to A -- $.10, what he paid, plus $.04 ($1000 divided by 25,000), his expected profit. Thus the breach resulted in a transfer of the 26,000 widgets from a lower valued to a higher valued use."

The first statement of the theory of efficient breach appears to have been made in a law review article by Robert Birmingham in "Breach of Contract, Damage Measures, and Economic Efficiency, 24 Rutgers L.Rev. 273, 284 (1970) (ôRepudiation of obligations should be encouraged where the promisor is able to profit from his default after placing his promisee in as good a position as he would have occupied had performance been renderedö). The theory was named by Charles Goetz and Robert Scott, Liquidated Damages, Penalties, and the Just Compensation Principle: A Theory of Efficient Breach, 77 Colum.L.Rev. 554 (1977).

Efficient Breach Theory is associated with Richard Posner and the Law and Economics school of thought. It has been used to defend the traditional common law rule that a non-tortious breach of contract cannot be remedied by punitive damages and penal damages (unreasonably excessive liquidated damages that are seen as a punishment for breach rather than a remedy). Such penalties would discourage efficient breach (therefore discouraging efficient behavior) and possibly put companies at increased risk of bankruptcy, which would be very bad for society. Posner explains his views in his majority opinion in Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co., 769 F.2d 1284 (7th Cir. 1985).

I suspect that the BoB-MC contract may be a groundbreaking development of the theory of efficient breach in the EVE-Online universe. The people have a right to know!

---

Originally by: Rosemary Robot

---

The legal theory of "efficient breach," states that one party may breach a contract if that party will suffer a greater economic loss by performing under the contract than by breaching it.

In the immortal words of Judge Richard Posner, "Suppose I sign a contract to deliver 100,000 custom-ground widgets at $.10 apiece to A, for use in his boiler factory. After I have delivered 10,000, B comes to me, explains that he desperately needs 25,000 custom-ground widgets at once since otherwise he will be forced to close his pianola factory at great cost, and offers me $.15 apiece for 25,000 widgets. I sell him the widgets and as a result do not complete timely delivery to A, who sustains $1000 in damages from my breach. Having obtained an additional profit of $1250 on the sale to B, I am better off even after reimbursing A for his loss. Society is also better off. Since B was willing to pay me $.15 per widget, it must mean that each widget was worth at least $.15 to him. But it was worth only $.14 to A -- $.10, what he paid, plus $.04 ($1000 divided by 25,000), his expected profit. Thus the breach resulted in a transfer of the 26,000 widgets from a lower valued to a higher valued use."

The first statement of the theory of efficient breach appears to have been made in a law review article by Robert Birmingham in "Breach of Contract, Damage Measures, and Economic Efficiency, 24 Rutgers L.Rev. 273, 284 (1970) (ôRepudiation of obligations should be encouraged where the promisor is able to profit from his default after placing his promisee in as good a position as he would have occupied had performance been renderedö). The theory was named by Charles Goetz and Robert Scott, Liquidated Damages, Penalties, and the Just Compensation Principle: A Theory of Efficient Breach, 77 Colum.L.Rev. 554 (1977).

Efficient Breach Theory is associated with Richard Posner and the Law and Economics school of thought. It has been used to defend the traditional common law rule that a non-tortious breach of contract cannot be remedied by punitive damages and penal damages (unreasonably excessive liquidated damages that are seen as a punishment for breach rather than a remedy). Such penalties would discourage efficient breach (therefore discouraging efficient behavior) and possibly put companies at increased risk of bankruptcy, which would be very bad for society. Posner explains his views in his majority opinion in Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co., 769 F.2d 1284 (7th Cir. 1985).

I suspect that the BoB-MC contract may be a groundbreaking development of the theory of efficient breach in the EVE-Online universe. The people have a right to know!

---

Originally by: Devian 666

---

Any mercenary worth their salt wouldn't release contract details to third parties. However, I still want to know the juicy details.

---