this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
806 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
58790 readers
2872 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When you read the article, it also points to another article that goes further into this case.
Seems it was already approved in 2014 for such a long-term relationship in writing. It seems that Elon just didn't want to pay for it even though Twitter was contractual bound to pay.
Which is the whole point. If they had 1 email, 1 PO, 1 documented proof of agreement, this would never be a fuckin court case. What is more likely, that X is risking liability for the $20M + legal costs in court trying to renege $20M down to $18M? All this suing company has to do, as I stated above, is show one acknowledgment and confirmation between the two parties and its an open and close case.
There was a judge (I'm going off memory from hearing it on the radio a year or so ago) in Canada who held a farmer liable for responding to a text with a thumbs up to a contractor asking if he got the contract he sent the farmer. Farmer went into court with the defense he was acknowledging that he received the text but it wasn't enough to convince beyond reasonable doubt there wasn't an understanding between the two.
If Twitter and Elon were trying to weasel out of paying this company, THEY WOULD BE SUING THEM for some made up breech of contract BS like they're doing to advertisers.
They have one, the contract signed in 2014. As is mentioned in the quote I shared.
Contracted =/= Court approved documentation
Ever heard of a verbal contract? It's a legally binding agreement unless everyone from the contracted party was fired and you don't have any fucking proof of the conversations with people no longer employed by the company you are suing.
So for the third time THE COMPANY SUING DOESNT HAVE THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THERE WAS A PURCHASING AGREEMENT. THATS WHY THEYRE SUING AND NOT GOING FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Like what the fuck are you even arguing for or against? That this company is going thru this expensive and lengthy court process to get judgment for the money they are owed for shits and giggles?
Here is another article that says they assumed Twitter accepted liability:
The complaint also says that Wiwynn, which makes servers and storage systems for data centers and cloud providers, had amassed $120 million worth of parts to fulfill Twitter's existing orders, under the assumption that Twitter had taken liability for them.
Again, they have a court approved document. As per the lawsuit filing:
And a master purchase agreement is a legally binding contract.
Summary judgement is not a thing separate from a lawsuit. It's literally a standard filling made in nearly every lawsuit (even if just as a hail mary). You referenced "beyond a reasonable doubt" earlier. This is also not the standard used in (US) civil cases--it's typically a standard consisting of the preponderance of the evidence.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "court approved documentation." Different jurisdictions approach contract law differently, but courts don't "approve" most contracts--parties allege there was a binding and contractual agreement, present their evidence to the court, and a mix of judge and jury determines whether under the jurisdictions laws and enforceable agreement occurred and how it can be enforced (i.e., are the obligations severable, what damages, etc.).