Abolish the Reserve List Petition

[Michael Keller]

Because you care.

[thecrav]

lol

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

*rubs crystal ball*
I am seeing a headline: "WOTC TO PLAYERS: DROP DEAD"

[Michael Keller]

*rubs crystal ball*
I am seeing a headline: "WOTC TO PLAYERS: DROP DEAD"

The doctrine of promissory estoppel allows a party to recover the benefit of a promise made even if a legal contract does not exist. Use of this doctrine relies on how significant the promisee's loss is in the absence of the fulfilled promise.
Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
So, what happens when someone makes you a promise, you rely on this promise, act on the promise and the person does not come through? In our personal lives, nothing will happen. We will move on and be more cautious next time. Legally speaking, when one party promises to perform and the other party relies on that promise, the injured party can sue, even in the absence of a signed contract.

An example will help. Suppose you are the principal of a small high school. A musician approaches you to discuss implementing a music program on campus. Excited about the possibilities this will bring to your students, you begin planning for the program. You order construction of a new building complete with soundproofing and a stage. Next, new furniture and fixtures, drums and tubas are delivered. You may even hire staff to manage the new music program. Then, in one fell swoop, the promise is retracted. The musician simply changes his mind. You might think that, without a contract, there is no recourse to recover not only the expenses but the embarrassment of having this promise broken.

Well, the law cannot help you with the embarrassment, but the doctrine of promissory estoppel can help you to recover your losses. It states that an injured party can recover damages if those damages were the result of a promise made by a promisor and the promise was significant enough to move the promisee to act on it. There are specific elements that must be present:

Promisor made a promise significant enough to cause the promisee to act on it
Promisee relied upon the promise
Promisee suffered a significant detriment
Relief can only come in the form of the promisor fulfilling the promise

The onus is on the collector to PROVE that, under DOPE, that the abolition of the RL was the only DIRECT cause of whatever financial impact they have suffered. That is tremendously hard to do with the secondary market playing a huge factor in collectibles.

I've already spoken to litigation (twice) about this offline, and they concur.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

The doctrine of promissory estoppel allows a party to recover the benefit of a promise made even if a legal contract does not exist. Use of this doctrine relies on how significant the promisee's loss is in the absence of the fulfilled promise.
Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
So, what happens when someone makes you a promise, you rely on this promise, act on the promise and the person does not come through? In our personal lives, nothing will happen. We will move on and be more cautious next time. Legally speaking, when one party promises to perform and the other party relies on that promise, the injured party can sue, even in the absence of a signed contract.

An example will help. Suppose you are the principal of a small high school. A musician approaches you to discuss implementing a music program on campus. Excited about the possibilities this will bring to your students, you begin planning for the program. You order construction of a new building complete with soundproofing and a stage. Next, new furniture and fixtures, drums and tubas are delivered. You may even hire staff to manage the new music program. Then, in one fell swoop, the promise is retracted. The musician simply changes his mind. You might think that, without a contract, there is no recourse to recover not only the expenses but the embarrassment of having this promise broken.

Well, the law cannot help you with the embarrassment, but the doctrine of promissory estoppel can help you to recover your losses. It states that an injured party can recover damages if those damages were the result of a promise made by a promisor and the promise was significant enough to move the promisee to act on it. There are specific elements that must be present:

Promisor made a promise significant enough to cause the promisee to act on it
Promisee relied upon the promise
Promisee suffered a significant detriment
Relief can only come in the form of the promisor fulfilling the promise

The onus is on the collector to PROVE that, under DOPE, that the abolition of the RL was the only DIRECT cause of whatever financial impact they have suffered. That is tremendously hard to do with the secondary market playing a huge factor in collectibles.

I've already spoken to litigation (twice) about this offline, and they concur.

Source your quotes.
Also this would, uh, make your petition worthless if true.

[Michael Keller]

Source your quotes.
Also this would, uh, make your petition worthless if true.

No it wouldn't, because people do not want to act proactively because they feel intimidated or plain lazy. I'm not dealing with that. Under no circumstances should these formats restrict people based on their economic status, which is what they're doing. We invest hundreds of thousands into these formats, but they...quietly...start to fade? As a player, I feel cheated because they purposely kept this list in place knowing what the repercussions were/are.

People don't act out of fear. They don't want change because they don't care. This petition simply reflects the desire of people to want change so they can afford and play these formats, nothing more. If I'm a player and I've invested money into this format and Vintage and I can't play them because the RL is causing an upswing in pricing (which, it is), as both player and investor I don't see a silver lining here.

[Mr. Safety]

...that, under DOPE...

I see what you did there...