Right. So what does the contract say about the terms of completion? Do you have a copy?
Case Study: The IIG Protocol for VFF
- Thread starter Uncayimmy
- Start date
Right. So what does the contract say about the terms of completion? Do you have a copy?
Since this is a skeptic's board, I figured that was always the case, especially when the subject at hand is purely a matter of opinion. I think it's safe to say you would be hard pressed to find any court decision based on three trials of detecting the locations of missing kidneys with one trial being invalidated due to errors by the testing organization. Therefore, you must try to frame the argument based on the fundamental principles you believe apply.
Even if a lawyer agrees with me, that doesn't mean another lawyer won't disagree. That's what they are paid to do, and quite frankly, it seems to be in their nature to find ways to interpret things to their advantage.
So, when I say she wouldn't have grounds to sue, that doesn't mean she couldn't get a lawyer to file a lawsuit anyway. If he's going to be paid on contingency, he may not be so confident in his argument, so he'll not take the case. If, however, the claimant is going to pay the actual fees, why not take the case? Ethically he needs to advise her of her chances, and he needs to have an argument that's not frivolous. Remember, on any given day in civil court, half the lawyers lose anyway. Well, in reality sometimes the "winning" lawyer doesn't get everything he wanted, which is another way of saying the "losing' lawyer won some of his points, but you get what I'm driving at (I hope).
It's a messy world. Continuing through all three trials is a matter of covering your ass.
"For this Preliminary Demonstration to be considered successful, the Applicant must correctly identify which Subject from each trial group of six was in fact missing a kidney and correctly identify which kidney (left or right) was missing."
So, if she fails one legitimate trial, she was not successful. Suppose the IIG makes a mistake on the two other trials. One remedy might be specific performance. So, if the court orders specific performance (redo the two "broken" tests), could that possibly change the outcome? No. So, why would they do that?
Would the court order the one legitimate test to be redone? Why would they? There's no reason to redo something that was done properly.
I should note that I have been operating under the assumption that the results are not revealed as they go along - a strategy for which I have strenuously argued. Another reason for this is if you reveal the results after each trial, the claimant can argue that this affected her ability to perform. She could legitimately say, "I figured I had lost anyway, so I really didn't try. I just wanted to make a guess and go home because I was so distraught." If that happened, then she would have a good argument for retest because the mistakes in the first two trials affected the outcome of the third.
Did you see my turkey analogy? Would you care to comment on that?
That's the whole of the written agreement between the two parties? There's no actual written contract?
If you don't know the answer to that, then why are you arguing so strenuously about the nature of the protocol as a contract? If you do know, why are you asking me?
I haven't been. My interest in this discussion has been very casual.
Only when you seemed to be bringing up your (lack of) credentials to support your interpretation did I bother commenting again.
So, I'll repeat the question -- is that the extent of the written agreement, or is there more?
Since you haven't done any basic research into the details of what we're talking about and your interest is merely casual, I will respond in kind.
The protocol is at www something or other.
UncaYimmy - I’ve changed the lottery scenario to be more like the IIG test . . .
You purchase a ticket in a lottery where the numbers of the tickets are in two halves (3726 - 2827).
There are two separate draws for each of the half-numbers and if both halve-numbers of your number are drawn you win, if not you lose.
The ticket half-numbers are on balls that are drawn at random from different barrels in two separate draws.
the draws are conducted and you don’t win, but you then find out that the in one of the draws the person running the draw didn’t put the ball with your half-number in the barrel.
Your other half-number was in the other barrel and draw however and as it wasn’t drawn you wouldn’t have won anyway so you can’t ask for your money back or a redraw.
You are saying that the fact you wouldn’t have won is legally more important than the fact you couldn’t have won. Is this correct?
You purchase a ticket in a lottery where the numbers of the tickets are in two halves (3726 - 2827).
There are two separate draws for each of the half-numbers and if both halve-numbers of your number are drawn you win, if not you lose.
The ticket half-numbers are on balls that are drawn at random from different barrels in two separate draws.
the draws are conducted and you don’t win, but you then find out that the in one of the draws the person running the draw didn’t put the ball with your half-number in the barrel.
Your other half-number was in the other barrel and draw however and as it wasn’t drawn you wouldn’t have won anyway so you can’t ask for your money back or a redraw.
You are saying that the fact you wouldn’t have won is legally more important than the fact you couldn’t have won. Is this correct?
Last edited:
I see your efforts in advancing discussion are as refined as your legal abilities.
Have fun navel-gazing.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
RTFM, AvalonXQ. Start from the beginning. Search here at the JREF forum for "VisionfromFeeling". Read all the threads about the claimant, the protocol, and the demonstration. Then go read all the discussions and commentary at the Stop VisionfromFeeling web site. You should also read everything related to the demonstration at this IIG page and its relevant links to familiarize yourself with the actual protocol which is being discussed here. Then go watch the video of the demonstration at USTREAM. And don't forget to read everything at Anita's own web site. You might be able to make a productive contribution to this discussion after you actually have some idea what everyone else here is talking about. Right now you don't, and nobody is going to be able to get you up to speed with some Reader's Digest condensed version. There are no Cliffs Notes. Now go. You've got a lot of homework to do.
At the moment it appears there is no actual written contract; the IIG protocol is what UY and others are citing to. If that's the case, then yes, it's probably necessary to read all of the above to figure out what the contract actually is.
I was hopeful, since folks were talking about "the contract", that there was a written document somewhere. Under four corners that would make the discussion a heck of a lot easier. But it turns out "the contract" was just a shorthand way of referring to the product of UY's legal analysis.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
You've been given links to all the resources you need. That you should choose to stay wrong from this point forward can only be attributed to wilful ignorance.
Before I answer this question, let me qualify it by saying that lotteries are strictly regulated as are most forms of gambling. If there is a requirement that all drawings be 100% fair, then not only would you be entitled to a ticket refund (most likely a replacement ticket instead), the winner, if there was one, would not be entitled to the jackpot. This would be a matter of statute rather than common law.
Furthermore, the IIG and the claimant could write a contract that says if there are any mistakes in judging the results that all results are considered invalid. They could then spell out the remedies for such a situation, which might include the IIG paying out of pocket for a retest should they be the ones making a mistake. We're dealing with a contract that doesn't spell this out.
Along those lines, the lottery company could and probably would want to have a clause that says if anything goes awry, the drawing is rendered null and void. This gives them the most protection from all types of fraud and makes people have more confidence in the drawing.
All that said, my answer is yes, the fact that the mistake by the lottery people did not actually prevent you from winning is the key point.
However, I think a lottery drawing is a terrible analogy because so many aspects of the case don't directly correlate to this case. The claimant doesn't pay the IIG anything. The IIG doesn't make a profit. It's not a game of chance - the claimant is actually supposed to do something to be successful rather than have the IIG do something that determines if she's successful by chance.
The Uniform Commercial Code (USA) says, "The remedies provided by [the Uniform Commercial Code] must be liberally administered to the end that the aggrieved party may be put in as good a position as if the other party had fully performed..."
So, let's look at this clause and apply it.
Early Stopping by Mistake - How can the aggrieved party (claimant) be put in as good a position as if the other party (IIG) had fully performed? One remedy is to have the IIG reimburse her expenses. The other remedy is for specific performance, which means requiring a retest of all three trials at the expense of the IIG.
Don't Stop Early and Claimant Fails a Legitimate Trial - Same question. The claimant's position is the same whether the other party fully performed or not - she still failed and was not entitled to reimbursement or the consideration the IIG was to give her for success.
To be fair, I'll argue your position based on my understanding of the law. What I would argue is that the claimant's position includes her being able to publicize her "success" rate in three trials. I would argue that she had the right to be able to say that she passed 2 out of 3 trials and without a "do-over" of that one trial, she cannot say that.
I would then have to convince the judge that this requires specific performance. Understand that I *know* that specific performance is an unusual step. It's typically reserved for unique transactions. For example, no judge would order a car dealership to sell me a specific vehicle - any old 2010 Kia will do so long as the colors and stuff match. By contrast the judge could order a rare bookseller to sell me a signed copy of Origin of Species because that's a unique item.
Anybody who has followed the Wacky Adventures of Vision From Feeling knows that VFF claims 100% accuracy and was taking a test specifically to show 100% accuracy. A compelling argument could be made that being able to say "I did what 1 in 50 people could do by chance" is of no real value.
That aside, look at the expenses involved. In the USA she's not going to be able to collect her legal expenses. There is no financial compensation for specific performance, so no attorney will take it on contingency. Therefore, we have to wonder if Anita willing to spend literally thousands of dollars on a lawsuit that had little chance of success. I'm gonna say she wouldn't.
Therefore, don't stop the test early.
So, let's look at this clause and apply it.
Early Stopping by Mistake - How can the aggrieved party (claimant) be put in as good a position as if the other party (IIG) had fully performed? One remedy is to have the IIG reimburse her expenses. The other remedy is for specific performance, which means requiring a retest of all three trials at the expense of the IIG.
Don't Stop Early and Claimant Fails a Legitimate Trial - Same question. The claimant's position is the same whether the other party fully performed or not - she still failed and was not entitled to reimbursement or the consideration the IIG was to give her for success.
To be fair, I'll argue your position based on my understanding of the law. What I would argue is that the claimant's position includes her being able to publicize her "success" rate in three trials. I would argue that she had the right to be able to say that she passed 2 out of 3 trials and without a "do-over" of that one trial, she cannot say that.
I would then have to convince the judge that this requires specific performance. Understand that I *know* that specific performance is an unusual step. It's typically reserved for unique transactions. For example, no judge would order a car dealership to sell me a specific vehicle - any old 2010 Kia will do so long as the colors and stuff match. By contrast the judge could order a rare bookseller to sell me a signed copy of Origin of Species because that's a unique item.
Anybody who has followed the Wacky Adventures of Vision From Feeling knows that VFF claims 100% accuracy and was taking a test specifically to show 100% accuracy. A compelling argument could be made that being able to say "I did what 1 in 50 people could do by chance" is of no real value.
That aside, look at the expenses involved. In the USA she's not going to be able to collect her legal expenses. There is no financial compensation for specific performance, so no attorney will take it on contingency. Therefore, we have to wonder if Anita willing to spend literally thousands of dollars on a lawsuit that had little chance of success. I'm gonna say she wouldn't.
Therefore, don't stop the test early.
Are you saying that all the VVF/IIG tests weren’t required to be 100% fair? So the IIG wouldn’t have complained if they had been unfair in Blondie’s favour? (yeah right).
Unless the protocol said something like - “The judges decision is final and no dispute will be entered in to” then I would have thought it would be absolutely implicate that the judging was required to be fair and accurate. Besides we aren’t just talking about a possible judging mistake. If the IIG had mistakenly or deliberately provided no person in the first test with a missing kidney then that’s protocol violation not a judging mistake.
Not putting your ball in one of the draws didn’t stop you winning!?!?!? What an amazing statement! By that incredulous “logic” if your number had been drawn out in the other drawn you would have won with only half your number drawn! If she had got the second and third tests correct (as she almost did) would she have won?
You think colour pipes is a better analogy?
I know, so why do keep saying she could ask for a refund? The IIG doesn’t pay the claimant anything in a preliminary test either (even if successful).
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
Well, essentially, this was her claim, - she could detect missing kidneys by "something like" x-ray vision". And that is what was tested.
Norm
A test stops because a wrong answer is given not because the IIG makes a mistake. That the wrong answer was later found to be caused by a mistake made by the IIG is a completely different matter.
If no person in a test had a missing kidney then the task of the test to identify a person with a missing kideny is utterly impossible to complete successfully. This possible mistake by the IIG would mean that neither that test or the overall test could be completed with 100% success. Who’s to know if not having a person with a missing kidney was a mistake or deliberate act?
Just because the consequences of a protocol violation by the IIG may be time consuming and expensive it doesn’t mean they aren’t liable.
Last edited:
So what. How could she detect a missing kidney if all people had two kidneys?
Oh, come on, ynot! We've been talking about this under the scenario that the IIG made a mistake in stopping the test early. If they don't make a mistake, then none of this ****ing matters. I am not about to spell every little ****ing detail for you in every ****ing post. If you can't keep up, then quit posting.
It doesn't matter unless you want to go for punitive damages, which is a whole other can of worms. Of course, that has nothing to do with whether the IIG should ****ing stop the ****ing test early if the claimant fails a trial.
I give up. I have gone way beyond the call of duty to try to explain this to you. I have given you numerous explanations and analogies. I have given you tons of material to read that I, myself, have read long before we ever discussed this. I have asked you questions, most which you flat out ignored.
That's it. No more. You can go get a law degree, and I still won't give a flying **** what you have to say about the issue.