[TNGary]

This will be interested to follow to the conclusion. The story continues,

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by TNGary

This will be interested to follow to the conclusion. The story continues,

Well no one can say the developers are "Law suit happy". They have ignored many things over the years that could easily be won that to me were libelous or slanderous. They are very quiet people and do not seek attention.

It appears to me that they felt this was important enough to establish a legal "tenet". Probably to protect their rights in some way.

I do not think it was about the money, but about the principal. IMHO

[Joe V.]

Originally Posted by TNGary

This will be interested to follow to the conclusion. The story continues,

They won their case. Vae victis

[Ben Franklin]

The Villages doesn't use Realtors. They have company agents who represent The Villages, not the buyer or seller. I assume this is about the two company agents who signed a no compete (give your soul away) contract, and then left to go out on their own?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Well no one can say the developers are "Law suit happy". They have ignored many things over the years that could easily be won that to me were libelous or slanderous. They are very quiet people and do not seek attention.

It appears to me that they felt this was important enough to establish a legal "tenant". Probably to protect their right to sell new homes in some way.

I do not think it was about the money, but about the principal. IMHO

1. it's a tenet, not a tenant.
2. Their right to sell new homes is already protected. It's THEIR property until it's sold, they can use who ever they want - including their own contractors - to sell on their behalf.
3. It's about the principal, alright. It's about proving to EVERYONE that you should never upset them, or they will come after you and your bank account. Even after they win a suit, they'll keep coming for more.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Well no one can say the developers are "Law suit happy". They have ignored many things over the years that could easily be won that to me were libelous or slanderous. They are very quiet people and do not seek attention.

It appears to me that they felt this was important enough to establish a legal "tenant". Probably to protect their right to sell new homes in some way.

I do not think it was about the money, but about the principal. IMHO

GG, may I respectfully suggest you intended "legal precedent"... and also "principle"? Precedent | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

IMHO theft of intellectual property was a significant issue of the lawsuit, especially that of trade secrets, primarily the customers list. Trade Secret Protection for Customer Lists: A Checklist | Fish & Richardson - JDSupra

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

1. it's a tenet, not a tenant.
2. Their right to sell new homes is already protected. It's THEIR property until it's sold, they can use who ever they want - including their own contractors - to sell on their behalf.
3. It's about the principal, alright. It's about proving to EVERYONE that you should never upset them, or they will come after you and your bank account. Even after they win a suit, they'll keep coming for more.

Thank you for correcting my spelling. I have never used that word before.

However I fiercely disagree with you on "they will come after you and your bank account." You know to me that just sounds like someone who thinks all financially successful people are greedy and without principle. The developers can hire the best lawyers. They won this case and I am not surprised. AND I am pleased. I believe that if you work hard and long hours and invest your own money, risk your own money and keep bettering your idea and plans and become enormously successful that is NO crime.

I think sometimes, a lot of times, the good guys are RICH. Rich is not a bad word.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Thank you for correcting my spelling. I have never used that word before.

However I fiercely disagree with you on "they will come after you and your bank account." You know to me that just sounds like someone who thinks all financially successful people are greedy and without principal. The developers can hire the best lawyers. They won this case and I am not surprised. AND I am pleased. I believe that if you work hard and long hours and invest your own money, risk your own money and keep bettering your idea and plans and become enormously successful that is NO crime.

I think sometimes, a lot of times, the good guys are RICH. Rich is not a bad word.

Principal vs. Principle | Grammarly Blog

Also: TENET | Definition of TENET by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of TENET

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Well no one can say the developers are "Law suit happy". They have ignored many things over the years that could easily be won that to me were libelous or slanderous. They are very quiet people and do not seek attention.

It appears to me that they felt this was important enough to establish a legal "tenant". Probably to protect their right to sell new homes in some way.

I do not think it was about the money, but about the principal. IMHO

Of course it is about the $$. Not the $$ from the lawsuit, but about protecting the cash making real estate machine that is the Villages. Does anyone think that the results of the litigation will NOT give pause to other Villages Home Sales People from going rouge? (notice I did not refer to them as Licensed Real Estate Agents).

Originally Posted by TNGary

This will be interested to follow to the conclusion. The story continues,

Any realtor who thinks of working for The Villages better think twice.

[TNGary]

Still confusing to me as to why the two main agents left TV real estate team, as it looked like a real cash cow for them, literally on the money train. OK so they had to ride a trolley every now and then. What am I missing? what was the business case for bailing out? or was it just poor judgement? any thoughts?

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by John41

Any realtor who thinks of working for The Villages better think twice.

John 41, What do you mean?

P.S. AND Thank you for correcting my spelling and grammar, Orange Bottle Baby and Manabout.

And....Mr. Town, I am still annoyed that you were very critical of my use of Hellmann's Mayonnaise and Velveeta. The next time my cousin Vinney comes to visit, I will introduce you.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Of course it is about the $$. Not the $$ from the lawsuit, but about protecting the cash making real estate machine that is the Villages. Does anyone think that the results of the litigation will NOT give pause to other Villages Home Sales People from going rouge? (notice I did not refer to them as Licensed Real Estate Agents).

I think anyone who sincerely wants to be a real estate agent, will think twice about being an agent/sales person for The Villages from now on. They're forewarned now. If you choose to leave, and try to succeed on your own, they'll make sure neither you, nor anyone associated with you, is permitted to even try. And you'll have to pay for the privilege.

The Morse Family essentially just blackballed an entire real estate company, including employees who never worked for the Villages in the first place.

You can all applaud it but I'm disgusted.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by TNGary

Still confusing to me as to why the two main agents left TV real estate team, as it looked like a real cash cow for them, literally on the money train. OK so they had to ride a trolley every now and then. What am I missing? what was the business case for bailing out? or was it just poor judgement? any thoughts?

According to the testimony, the agents were treated like salaried employees, even though they were officially sub-contractors. They were expected to work overtime, on their own dime. They were expected to attend mandatory meetings every week outside normal work hours. They were expected to pick up potential clients - sometimes from the airport - using their own personal vehicle. They were expected to be on call 24/7. But they weren't paid for all of that. These were things they were actually ordered to do. It wasn't merely an expectation that they "would" do it, they were "required" to do it.

Eventually they burned out.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Eventually they burned out.

They did not burn out..............starting a company would take more time
They stole assets in an effort to make more money.