Quote:
Originally Posted by marketsmart
i hear your point. what people have to understand is that adult was built on a foundation of a "free for all". this industry has grown past that which is why people with no business background are having a tough time surviving. brick and mortar companies learned a long time ago that when it comes to business, contracts rule..
any judge will tell you that ignorance is no excuse when it comes to law..
the issue here, imho, goes to the core of contractual law. if you run a business, then you need to run your company as a business.
i deal with a lot of mainstream affiliate programs and they are all very clear when it comes to their terms and their clients terms.
i dont have a single personal issue here with d. what i do have an issue with is that shoehorn acted within d's tos (which doesnt really exist).
in a court of law, this is a cut and dry case...  |
There is absolutely nothing that is a cut and dry case when speaking the law. Words like intend, effort or best effort, knowingly makes a world of difference.
Especially dealing within areas where it is questionable if it can be defined as cybersquating or not.
Most companies is very strict about their contracts but very often they are not worth the piece of paper they are written on.
We have ourself had to write off 6 digits sums in the past due to word games in contracts. A contract/tos give you something to challenge, it doesn't protect you