why not sue CC ?

[ahahah]

you repeat we are in this situation because of CC which caused a lost of lot of money.


so why not sue them for damages?


if they are liable they have to assume. haven't they?


this was envisaged or not? why waiting for it?

 

[ekianjo]

so why not sue them for damages?


if they are liable they have to assume. haven't they?

Apparently there was no contract signed between Craig and CC, (as far as I understand). Therefore it's hard to sue if there's no agreement on paper.

 

[ahahah]

if you destroy my car, do i need a signed contract to sue you?

 

[moxie]

Has there been word that there will be no suing of CC? That would be news to me.


My impression was that there are legal people that are working with Craig on collecting relevant information and sizing up the different ways to go about pursuing CC. This is not, however, something that is done in five minutes. It is also something that one does not, for strategic reasons, talk about until one is ready with the proper papers and the proper evidence.


One should also ponder that sueing somebody isn't free - It costs money for legal council and stuff like that. Given that Craig apparently is in a situation where the liquidity of the company isn't great (that is, he has orders he cannot fulfil until more orders come in), that would indicate that it would be difficult to launch a case until that particular hurdle is overcome. So even if the relevant information is collected and the proper advisers has decided on the most fruitful strategy, it would probably be put on hold until there is a bit more gold in the coffers. Yes, you can get the losing party to pay court costs, but you need to stay afloat until then. Which, by the way, is the general strategy by which big companies can do most anything they want to the small companies - They have the cash flow to be able to sustain a case until their smaller counterpart keels over into liquidation, never mind who is in the legal right.

 

[ekianjo]

if you destroy my car, do i need a signed contract to sue you?

The comparison is hardly relevant. But yes, even in a car accident, you need an official agreement between the two parties to get the insurance to pay something for your damages. At least in the different countries where i lived so far.

 

[ahahah]

generally this is the lawyers you have to pay that are expensive. In that case there is no need of them, since it is so easy to win^^

 

[ekianjo]

generally this is the lawyers you have to pay that are expensive. In that case there is no need of them, since it is so easy to win^^

Mmm, since like you have never had experience with the justice system.

 

[ahahah]

if you destroy my car, do i need a signed contract to sue you?

The comparison is hardly relevant. But yes, even in a car accident, you need an official agreement between the two parties to get the insurance to pay something for your damages. At least in the different countries where i lived so far.

that was not what i meant. my example was about a vandalism act.


i talked about a contract signed before the destruction act.

 

[ekianjo]

if you destroy my car, do i need a signed contract to sue you?

The comparison is hardly relevant. But yes, even in a car accident, you need an official agreement between the two parties to get the insurance to pay something for your damages. At least in the different countries where i lived so far.

that was not what i meant. my example was about a vandalism act.


i talked about a contract signed before the destruction act.

In case of vandalism if the person who destroys your property does not leave a note you are left without any recourse, unless your insurance covers such cases (for which you have to pay extra).


Anyway there was no contract between CC and Craig so I do not really understand how can you tell the judge that CC had certain obligations if nothing was written. I do not know the case in details so Craig can probably provide more details, but if that is indeed the case there is nothing much that can be done.

 

[ahahah]

i presume CC pay their insurance for this kind of situation. so they have to cover the compensation.

 

[PokeParadox]

Who knows? It appears they are liable, since many are sitting twiddling their thumbs waiting for their Pandoras... but the thing is we don't know a what stage the legal proceedings are at with regards to getting them to cough up any compensation.


As previously mentioned any details into this could probably damage OP's case against CC - I think the most you'll get out od Craig would be that a case is still on-going or not.

 

[moxie]

The information that has leaked says that there has been agreement, and it has been detailed in email, but that there is no formal contract as in a piece of paper with signatures on. Theoretically, it doesn't matter, since in most jurisdictions an agreement is an agreement anyhow. The problems is in verifying the actual contents of the agreement, and that is where the contract is a good thing - It is a formal specifikation of the contents of the agreement. If there is no contract proper, that bit takes a bit more work. During which work, of course, you do not talk about it, since you do not want to give the other party the possibility of obscuring evidence.


However, even with a contract and everything supposedly in the clear, it can still take several months and lots of lawyer work to push through an "easy win", depending on the craftiness of your adversary. More so when the details of the agreement can be contested. And those months cost lawyer money. And no, you don't go to court without proper legal representation, unless you really like being ripped a new one.

 

[ekianjo]

i presume CC pay their insurance for this kind of situation. so they have to cover the compensation.

Do you understand what "There is no contract" means?

 

[Scntrblob]

The guy above me is obviously under the impression that one, be it even Craig, would send a company several hundred thousand of dollars without a contract on what to do with them? What's next?

 

[ahahah]

i presume CC pay their insurance for this kind of situation. so they have to cover the compensation.

Do you understand what "There is no contract" means?

lol, i answered you about that when i talked about the vandalism example there is no contract between you and the vandal.


ok this is not the same situation but it is just to tell you that it is possible to sue someone even if "there is no contract"

 

[WizardStan]

Craig has said several times that they are exploring their legal avenues (ie, that they fully intend to sue CC they just need to go through the right process so they don't waste their time).


It is strictly counterproductive for us to be discussing this, however. It's one thing to discuss the facts of what happened (facts based entirely on what OPT has told us, but if OPT lied then that's their own fault), but now we're encroaching on speculation. Speculation about contracts and insurance and liability. Speculation is the road down which libel lies. Don't give CC the opportunity to counter sue OPT. Stick to the facts.

 

[Wootson]

Why was there never a signed contract between OpenPandora and CC? Did it cost $100.000 to set one up? However, here in The Netherlands an agreement via text on a silly piece of paper without any signings, or even just by speech, is already binding and will stand a chance in court if the proper people work it out for you (building a strong case, with witnesses).


It really is afterwards-talk, but I think a contract would be the first thing to do before any parts were touched by another person/company. Especially if that other person/company is based in another country.


At least the Pandora is now manufactured in Germany, so OpenPandora did learn a very important lesson here. If you want stuff done the way you want it and when you want it, be sure to stay local. Local means having the option to visit the company yourself, sign the contract(s) in person, knowing the local law system, etcetera.

 

[moxie]

Craig has said several times that they are exploring their legal avenues (ie, that they fully intend to sue CC they just need to go through the right process so they don't waste their time).


It is strictly counterproductive for us to be discussing this, however. It's one thing to discuss the facts of what happened (facts based entirely on what OPT has told us, but if OPT lied then that's their own fault), but now we're encroaching on speculation. Speculation about contracts and insurance and liability. Speculation is the road down which libel lies. Don't give CC the opportunity to counter sue OPT. Stick to the facts.

Yes, like this.

Why was there never a signed contract between OpenPandora and CC? Did it cost $100.000 to set one up? However, here in The Netherlands an agreement via text on a silly piece of paper without any signings, or even just by speech, is already binding and will stand a chance in court if the proper people work it out for you (building a strong case, with witnesses).

Exactly. And, as WizardStan also says, the implication of the few things that we know is that this is what is being done. But, also, that giving too much information about the process, or even speculating too much about it, will quite realistically hurt the chances of success in that endeavor.

 

[moxie]

The guy above me is obviously under the impression that one, be it even Craig, would send a company several hundred thousand of dollars without a contract on what to do with them? What's next?

That is not uncommon. It is quite possible to contract someone to do some work, have a very detailed agreement on what should be done and when and for how much, and then follow through on all that, without having the formal legal document called a Contract. In some cases it might even be beneficial to do so, since a formal contract leaves very little wiggle room in cases where one might conceivably want some, with regards to delivery of parts or final product or whatever. Also, since it involves less legal people, who cost money, but that is a secondary thing.


To run without a formal contract of course depends on how much trust one places in the contractor. Sometimes, even seasoned veterans of the business fail in their judgement of others trustworthiness.

 

[erico]

I have heard before that a lot of people do work with these companies without a contract but with required orders of productions and so on to fill in the gap.


To enforce something as an ´international law´ is really hard but not impossible.


Such subject was discussed a few times before, I too think is best leave this issues with the op guys.