lordpasternack wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:The bigger deal for me is that I can't wrap my head around the idea of anyone just "volunteering" to create and run that whole store for nothing, and not only that but use one's own corporate entity (that requires out of pocket payments of fees and such to keep in compliance with US corporate laws), to do so. That's Timonen not only doing the work, but taking all the legal liability too. For nothing?
I think it's presumed that the negotiated salary Josh was to pay himself through the store takes into account his running of that part of the site, along with other duties.
What RDF/Dawkins have alleged is that the salary Josh was to pay himself through the store was $0.
lordpasternack wrote:
I think it's clear that if the salary was set down (verbally) to be extracted via that particular source, it would seem sensible that it would be with the duties rendered to said source in mind.
Yes, that would seem sensible.
lordpasternack wrote:
Also, people may frequently have duties added to them in any case without a pay-rise. If they don't like it, they can no doubt appeal. It doesn't give them the right to dip their hands into the cookie jar.
Except, that here Josh was not an employee who was "assigned duties." Under U.S. law an "independent contractor" necessarily must be "independent." Even in RDF's complaint they point out that Josh was an independent contractor and that he was to provide his own workers compensation insurance, pay unemployment compensation and otherwise be independent of RDF. Josh was hired by Dawkins personally work on certain projects, and paid. He was hired by RDF to work on certain projects, and paid.
Dawkins claims that he then hired Josh to run the Store through Josh's company, UBP, and take care of everything related to the store, but this project would not be paid for. Dawkins was paying Josh enough already....says the complaint.
lordpasternack wrote:
I really don't think that Richard would take Josh to court based on a possible "misremembering" - and likely has some kinds of evidence at least to the effect that he was being deceived. I know which side I'm weighing down on in the meantime here. I know which of the two has the hungrier ego and is casually deceptive, and which has more of a penchant for honesty. That may not count for much at the moment - but we'll see how things pan out..

At this point we really don't know. Both sides, to some extent, are basing their positions on their recollections. The first legal basis in the complaint for RDF to sue Josh is an "oral contract," whereby Josh agreed to use his own company, UBP, to own the Store and run it - and that it was to be run "for the benefit of RDF." We don't know much more than that, really, about even what the terms of this "oral contract" were.
I would expect, as you pointed out, that RDF has some evidence of deception - they better, since they've alleged "fraud" and that statements were made constituting an "oral contract." Someone is going to have to testify to what fraudulent statements were made and what the terms of the oral contract were. If it's one person's word against another, the question of proof becomes very difficult.
One thing i'd like to know is how much money did RDF pay in to UBP to run the Store. Was the Store self-sufficient, or did RDF have to bankroll it. If the store was self-sufficient, that would tend to favor Josh. If RDF was dumping money in it, it would tend to indicate that UBP was in some respect operating for the benefit of RDF - nothing is generally for free in these situations.