Originally Posted by
chinamaniac
That's what I thought he implied
I thought it was pretty clear: They SHOULD do what you (and Sheets, and Reggiman and even myself) suggested, BUT they are not obligated to accept these terms. Again, you're thinking only practically about the situation and not legally.
Suppose someone owes you $10,000 and just assume he has no way of paying in the future. He offers you $1,000 but you have to agree to forgive the rest of the debt, your only other option is to take him to court (which will cost you more money and no matter what he can never pay you). The practical solution is to accept the $1,000, but it doesn't mean you have to from a legal standpoint. You can take him to court if you want to.
What you are arguing in this thread is that the practical solution is how it would play out legally, which simply isn't the case.
Beyne and his backers had a binding agreement, he can't cancel it on his own if he is still planning on playing the ME (he can cancel it if he doesn't play). Just because he's now playing on someone else's money doesn't void the previous agreement. You can't lease a car and then go back to the dealership and say "someone else is going to lease me a car so here you go, I'm cancelling the lease."
If you change the deal between Beyne and his backers to a $1,000,000 tournament, an amount worth suing over for sure, how would the court case play out? And right there you have your answer. You're simply looking at it practically, and letting the amount be the deciding factor. The amount doesn't matter: Stealing is stealing, and a contract is a contract. The only difference is that when it's for smaller amounts it will cost you more to sue, this doesn't mean you can't sue though.