Interesting Partial/Full defence to any CoinLab Claim

[jubalix]

If you go to the CoinLab website the are (still) directing traffic to MtGOX to trade.

It becomes harder to argue that Mt. Gox is breach by servicing US customers, when you (CoinLabs) are at the same time actively directing all or any persons to trade at Mt. Gox.

This may form a basis of estoppel, or similar relief or at least offset the claim.  

EDIT, Ok Finally some one got hold of a part of the agreement it purportedly reads

During said two years period, CoinLab may provide the Services to the CoinLab Customers
only on the MtGox Website or on a CoinLab Website.

So are they treating as the term being on Foot? Hmmm have to get the rest of this.

[virtualmaster]

Shit.
Probably because of CoinLab's 75 million $ claim bitcoin prices are now going down.

[crazy_rabbit]

No, CoinLab is supposed to handle all Mt.Goxs US customers. But apparently MtGox hasn't transferred the customer data to coinlab, and even the lawsuit claims that MtGox has been Banning people who use Coinlab. Who knows.

[jubalix]

No, CoinLab is supposed to handle all Mt.Goxs US customers. But apparently MtGox hasn't transferred the customer data to coinlab, and even the lawsuit claims that MtGox has been Banning people who use Coinlab. Who knows.

doesn't really matter  CL directing people to MtGx who they are suing for not sending people to them....

[Stampbit]

No, CoinLab is supposed to handle all Mt.Goxs US customers. But apparently MtGox hasn't transferred the customer data to coinlab, and even the lawsuit claims that MtGox has been Banning people who use Coinlab. Who knows.

But why then is CL directing people to MtGx?? JP

Cause they havent figured out how to edit their .htaccess

[virtualmaster]

No, CoinLab is supposed to handle all Mt.Goxs US customers. But apparently MtGox hasn't transferred the customer data to coinlab, and even the lawsuit claims that MtGox has been Banning people who use Coinlab. Who knows.

Possible. Anyway it is bad for the bitcoin price.

[mindtomatter]

No, CoinLab is supposed to handle all Mt.Goxs US customers. But apparently MtGox hasn't transferred the customer data to coinlab, and even the lawsuit claims that MtGox has been Banning people who use Coinlab. Who knows.

doesn't really matter  CL directing people to MtGx who they are suing for not sending people to them....

"Sending people to them" was not what was agreed to - All US and Canadian Mt.Gox users were supposed to become Coinlab customers by March 22 - Pretty clearly that never happened.

I've requested exhibit a (the original contract) so we can take a look at what was really promised.  What they're stipulating is "breach of contract" and since the contract has a "in the event of breach of contract" clause, I don't see how Gox get's out of the 50 million.

And what would you suggest Coinlab do?  They've been marketing themselves on the expectation of being able to serve customers via the agreement with Gox, and Gox has failed to perform - Should they just say "Well, too bad everybody!  You came here but we're having a problem getting our contract terms fulfilled so just hang out a few months while this sorts itself out in the legal system"

Of course not, they act like professionals and point their customers to someone who *can* service their needs.  They didn't partner with Mt.Gox because of their personalities, it's because Gox is the biggest player and they want to supplement and expand that, not reinvent the wheel.

Also, I am not a lawyer - Just an independent journalist who spends all his time on Bitcoin.

[repentance]

I've requested exhibit a (the original contract) so we can take a look at what was really promised. 

Exhibit A has been linked many times and finding it online should have been no problem for a journalist.

http://ia601700.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.wawd.192566/gov.uscourts.wawd.192566.1.1.pdf

[mindtomatter]

Reading now, I like to get my information straight from the horses mouth.

[mindtomatter]

So yeah, this is pretty straightforward.  Mt.Gox provides exclusivity for NA (US and canada) all of whom become Coinlab's clients as of March 22 2013 (but that never happened), in exchange for essentially a non-compete from Coinlab affirming that they will not open a competing exchange in the US, or anything that looks like it.

This was a mutually advantageous agreement because Coinlab looks real and has fairly prominent backing, while Mt.Gox requires multiple hoops be jumped through before taking US funds.  If Coinlab opened a competing firm, it would demolish the monopoly Mt.Gox has, so the potential behemoth partnered with the current behemoth to keep their exposure and costs low.

From my read, Gox breached the terms in several instances and before Coinlab can start an exchange, the contract needs to go away (or they'd be in breach themselves)

The 50 million in pre-approved damages does NOT just apply to mt. gox, but rather to either party in the event they breach the contract.  In this case

K. Liquidated Damages. Both Parties hereby agree that it may be impossible to determine the monetary harm
suffered by the non-breaching Party in the event that MtGox breaches section F.l or in the event that CoinLab breaches
section F.2 and that therefore, after careful consideration, the Parties agree that reasonable damages for such breach
shall be $50,000,000 USD, an amount the Parties agree is reasonable and fair given the nature of the Agreement.

F. Exclusivity.
F. 1 During the Term, MtGox and Tibanne shall not grant anyone the right to use the Licensed Materials to provide
the Services, or any part thereof, in the Territory. The exclusivity granted herein shall apply strictly to Services
targeting the Territory and the CoinLab Customers (as defined below) and advertised and sold as such. It shall not
include the provision of Services to users of the Services who, depending on the interpretation or circumstances, may or
may not be considered CoinLab Customers.
F.2 During a period of two years from the start of the Term, CoinLab shall not, directly or indirectly (including
through legal entities ultimately owned by the same person or persons as CoinLab) provide services similar to the
Services on any website. During said two years period, CoinLab may provide the Services to the CoinLab Customers
only on the MtGox Website or on a CoinLab Website.

[kjj]

Gox does not appear to have breached F.1, so liquidated damages do not apply.  That pretty much just leaves actual damages, which are, at best, a pittance, relatively speaking.  Note that the agreement is mostly concerned with future income.

[mindtomatter]

The problem is THEY'RE still servicing customers who should be Coinlab customers as of march 22 - I encourage you to read the whole contract and compare it to the complaint - If the complaint is accurate, Coinlab literally cannot do business because MtGox failed to hold up the terms and continued servicing those customers themselves.

Contract
http://www.scribd.com/doc/139181173/Contract-between-Mt-Gox-and-Coinlab

Complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/139281443/Coinlab-v-Mt-Gox

[jubalix]

The problem is THEY'RE still servicing customers who should be Coinlab customers as of march 22 - I encourage you to read the whole contract and compare it to the complaint - If the complaint is accurate, Coinlab literally cannot do business because MtGox failed to hold up the terms and continued servicing those customers themselves.


Contract
http://www.scribd.com/doc/139181173/Contract-between-Mt-Gox-and-Coinlab

Complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/139281443/Coinlab-v-Mt-Gox

ah thanks!