Tecshare lied about me scamming him

[usagi]

I had locked and deleted this because I thought a resolution was impossible and TECSHARE had shut up about it. Now it seems he's back at it, this time taunting me because he didn't get punished for what he did back then. He's actually asking me what right I have to the work he claims he completed under contract and was paid for.

Note: Yes, I do in fact have a right to ask for work which has been paid for since 4 or 5 months now.

Thread reopened: see below.

[1715265559]

1715265559

[1715265559]

1715265559

[1715265559]

1715265559

[1715265559]

1715265559

[Coinabul]

Can you link to the banners he made you?

[AndrewBUD]

If I may ask how much did he pay?

[P4man]

I think they look pretty good for drafts too. Maybe they were not in the style you were looking for, but clearly a considerable amount of time was spent on making these. Seems only fair he gets compensated for that.

Meanwhile Ill remember tecshare if I ever need some artwork done.

[stochastic]

I think you (and lots of other people) need to reevaluate how to get a design project done. 

A contract is not for trust as a person that signs a contract might not do the work or not anyway.  A contract is done to prevent any misunderstandings.

For example it would best work like this:

1.  Client makes a request for work detailing what they want.
2.  Artists give the client bids, shows the client his or her portfolio, and sets the time of completion.
3.  The client reviews the portfolios of the bidders and selects an artist to do the job.
4.  The client and artist sign a contract detailing the total payment for the work, what is considered acceptable completion, what would happen if the client or artist decides to not complete the work, any copyright issues, and who to mediate in case of a disagreement.
5.  The client sends the cost agreed into escrow.
6.  The artist sends a percentage of the final cost to escrow, to show the client they are serious in completing the work.  If it is not completed then they lose the amount they put up.
7.  The artist does the work, shows the client the prototypes for revisions.
8.  Once the work is done and there is not disagreements between the artist and the client then the work is sent to the client and the escrow agent releases the funds to the artist.

This is how I usually work.  When I did logo and banner work for usagi I cut some slack because I am interested in seeing CPA succeed because I think it is a good idea and wanted to get logos and banners for CPA completed quickly.  I also did not mind you having other people work on the job, although, clients can't expect design work to be like going to a store.  If someone see something at a store and you don't like it then don't have to buy it, but in design if someone asks/accepts a designer to start designing things and the client don't like it, then the client still has to buy it.  With a contract it will express how much to pay if the client does not like the work and wants to quit working.  If the designer also puts some money down then that should prove to the client that this person is serious.

I have to say though, I think usagi is a fair person.  Maybe the work with this other person happened because of a lack of communication.  I know when I acted as a middleman for a designer and usagi that usagi was a little slow in replying.  But I attributed this to usagi being very busy as all of the replies happened around 3 AM.  Also, I quoted a price for usagi thinking we would negotiate a price.  Usagi accepted the price I set out and even though he thought the price was high he paid the payment we agreed on.

[bitcoinBull]

I think you are a stingy client expecting way too much for $50/$100. If you want to prove you can get better for $45, pay it to animatedbanner.com and show here what they make for you (linking to their examples doesn't count).

[nimda]

2 problems:
- You offered him early payment, then retracted the offer
- This was not spec work; you can't expect him to get nothing for his time.

I'm not saying he needs to be compensated in full. However, he did spend time on it and should receive partial payment for the drafts. Certainly not $150, but something partial. Then he can hand over the high-res and you can both move on.

Speaking of which, where are the source files? They've been paid for...

[AndrewBUD]

2 problems:
- You offered him early payment, then retracted the offer
- This was not spec work; you can't expect him to get nothing for his time.

I'm not saying he needs to be compensated in full. However, he did spend time on it and should receive partial payment for the drafts. Certainly not $150, but something partial. Then he can hand over the high-res and you can both move on.

Speaking of which, where are the source files? They've been paid for...

I would like to see, if that's okay with OP? or Matthew... Whoever they belong to

[nimda]

I'd say the sources belong to MNW, but IANAL

[Bitcoin Oz]

I cant see the banners because I get a 403 error page on those links.

[AndrewBUD]

What is IANAL ? lol doesn't sound fun


"you are not a lawyer" Need a better acronym

[Coinoisseur]

And this folks is why the purely art or skill based contract work can be a rough business.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Usagi, there's no need to defend yourself I feel, as TECSHARE has already been paid for the work. I will be instructing him to finish the work and give it to you, as I recognize this as being a miscommunication. Do with them as you will, consider it as a gift regardless from a fan ^_^

[rjk]

Anyone in the design business, or anyone looking to hire a designer, READ THIS FIRST:
http://www.no-spec.com/what-is-spec/

[usagi]

Usagi, there's no need to defend yourself I feel, as TECSHARE has already been paid for the work. I will be instructing him to finish the work and give it to you, as I recognize this as being a miscommunication. Do with them as you will, consider it as a gift regardless from a fan ^_^

There are outstanding issues here, and TECSHARE seems to consider my right to a fair process as a "threat". He's tormenting me over it so I thought I would unlock the thread and provide an update.

Note: this is 4 or 5 months old.

The basic issue here is that TECSHARE has been paid in full for work he did not deliver. In my view his refusal to complete first revision (he promised two revisions and could not complete the first one) was unacceptable -- he said it was 'too difficult' and/or 'didn't look good'. So I fired him and he immediately opened a scam accusation against me.

Matthew N. Wright then stepped up and paid him off for me before I was even able to log on and read what happened. This all happened while I was at work IIRC.

Fast forward to today. I still do not have the hi res art files TECSHARE claimed he completed and has been fully paid for. Frankly I didn't care until he started asking me what my right was to claim the work he was paid for. Then again, how could he have completed it when he did not complete second revision, let alone first? Choosing from a bunch of samples is not a revision.

All I am asking is for TECSHARE to give me the work he says he already completed and has been paid for. If he can't do this and refuses to STFU about it, why not tag him as a scammer? I mean the remedy here is so easy -- either give me the art I paid for and allow me one more revision as was agreed, or give me the money back. It's really that simple.

[BCB]

usagi,

You have indicated that your insurance fund for which the logo was created did not take off

You have indicated that you are "winding down your businesses"

It was determined that MNW paid for the logo.

This is obviously just one m ore bad choice in a long line of BAD business decisions.


LET IT GO.

You claim to be tired and busy with your "job" and "winding down your companies" so you can "spend more time with your family"

You refuse to answer questions I've posted to you.

Yet you had time to open another months old scammer thread which was a distraction then and continues to be a distraction now.

Yesterday you and deprived carried on the most civil dialogue I've seen from you.  You actually sounded lucid, rational and willing to bring this embarrassing, disgracefully situation to a conclusion.

No you are right back to you old (OBVIOUSLY UNSUCCESSFUL!) tricks.

Ignore the FUD.

Lock this thread. 

make reparations

Wind down you companies

and I bet most everyone will leave you alone

Thank you.

[BCB]

Request for a moratorium on usagi post until January 7th, 2013.

Usagi, at that time please report back on your developments with paying your investors back and winding down your companies.

Thank you.

[usagi]

Request for a moratorium on usagi post until January 7th, 2013.

Usagi, at that time please report back on your developments with paying your investors back and winding down your companies.

Thank you.

I have a right to ask for the work which was paid for. That is the point.

Second, please stop spamming the forums. This is the fourth post you've made with the same message:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134477.msg1432522#msg1432522
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133823.msg1432607#msg1432607
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1432608#msg1432608
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103045.msg1432610#msg1432610 (quoted above)

I doubt the mods will do anything if I report you, but if you continue to make yourself as annoying as possible maybe someone else might?

[fbastage]

He has to be annoying, else the scammers win.

[TECSHARE]

Actually you are the one who wont let it go. The only reason I am here AGAIN is because you continue to lie in a lame attempt to save your own reputation. If you continue to lie about the situation I will continue to correct you. Your solution: stop lying

Speaking of lying you forgot to mention that you made no payments, so even though some one took mercy on you and paid me, you are still a scammer for your theft of service. Just because Mathew M. Wright took mercy on you and paid for the contract you refused to honor does not mean you have any rights. I closed my own scam thread against you because I was not interested in anything but getting paid for my work, you now demonstrate to me that I shouldn't have ever closed it.

Your post from the 31st claiming I 'defrauded" you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134011.0

My response from the 3rd on another thread since it was locked right away:

I wanted to bring attention to the fact that USAGI has once again shown himself to not only be dishonest, but willing to lie even further to cover up his past mistakes to the point of implicating himself with his self contradictions.

In this thread "Topic: Counter Evidence for the BCB thread": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134011.msg1427043#msg1427043
(which was promptly locked)

USAGI claims that I "DEFRAUDED" him. In order for me to have defrauded him he would have to have paid for something, ANYTHING. I was paid by Mathew M. Wright for work USAGI contracted, but later refused to pay for. Because of his own issues with his investments failing he felt he did not need to honor our contract, and later claimed it was spec work (it was not). Explained in detail with quotes here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102798.0

Furthermore Mathew M. Wright never gave me instruction to release the files to you. He told you he did in a public thread but no such action was taken. As far as I am concerned if Mathew has a problem with it he can contact me. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CLAIM I SCAMMED YOU OUT OF ANYTHING - you didn't pay for a god damned thing, and these repeated counter accusations are not only extremely childish but quite transparent. Here is his counter accusation which is shockingly deleted.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103045.0

In summation, stop making childish accusations to draw attention away from your own failures. I hope I don't have to read any more baseless accusations from you in the future.

[usagi]

You asked, "what right do I have to ask..." simple. I have a right to ask because we had a contract, you were paid, and I did not get what was promised to me under contract. So, I have a right to ask. That will be all.

[BCB]

usagi

You may win the battle but you most certainly will lose the war.

You're arrogance is undeniable

you're desperation is palpable

and your sheer stupidity is just unbelievable

[usagi]

usagi

You may win the battle but you most certainly will lose the war.

You're right, I will win this battle. But as to the future;

actions speak louder than words

...I say this because explaining what I will do to solve this would be seen as fillabusting by you.

You're arrogance is undeniable

you're desperation is palpable

and your sheer stupidity is just unbelievable

It is precisely because you did not treat me fairly that I do not deal with you. Among other infractions, how dare you suggest I do not have the right to ask for what I have been promised under contract, and which was paid for?

For all the crap I feel people have thrown at me in the end I am forced to admit they were being fair. It's one of my failsafes. When I am in an argument with someone, I ask myself -- have they treated me fairly?

If they have treated me fairly despite them not liking me (or me not liking them) or having evidence against me, then I try to reconsider my position. This is why I apologized to many people recently as you pointed out. It is also why although I am loathe to admit it, puppet is probably not a.... puppet. He has, on two occasions, admitted he was wrong. It is precisely this capability to admit you are wrong, which is a key in evaluating whether or not you are fair.

When this is all over, I would probably try to apologize personally to someone like puppet.

[TECSHARE]

It is precisely because you did not treat me fairly that I do not deal with you. Among other infractions, how dare you suggest I do not have the right to ask for what I have been promised under contract, and which was paid for?

Notice his careful wording here where he claims ownership, yet refuses to admit he made no such payment.

You violated our contract and YOU did not pay. In the court of law that means you have ZERO rights to any work I created. Just because an UNSOLICITED 3rd party paid for the work that was completed up to that point does not mean you have any right to claim completion of the contract. I was not compensated according to the contract, I was compensated by a 3rd party for work currently rendered. You are not owed high resolution images, you are owed what you have up to this point, and you already have it.

[usagi]

It is precisely because you did not treat me fairly that I do not deal with you. Among other infractions, how dare you suggest I do not have the right to ask for what I have been promised under contract, and which was paid for?

Notice his careful wording here where he claims ownership, yet refuses to admit he made no such payment.

You violated our contract and YOU did not pay. In the court of law that means you have ZERO rights to any work I created. Just because an UNSOLICITED 3rd party paid for the work that was completed up to that point does not mean you have any right to claim completion of the contract. I was not compensated according to the contract, I was compensated by a 3rd party for work currently rendered. You are not owed high resolution images, you are owed what you have up to this point, and you already have it.

So you are saying I had no right to assign the debt to Matthew N. Wright, and therefore, you have not been paid?

http://contracts.uslegal.com/third-parties-and-assignments/

An assignment is a transfer of rights that a party has under a contract to another person, called an assignee.  The assigning party is called the assignor.  An assignee of a contract may generally sue directly on the contract rather than suing in the name of the assignor.  The other party to the original contract is called the obligor.  For example, suppose I sell my car to Larry for $10,000.00.  He does not have $10,000.00 in cash, but executes an agreement stating that he agrees to pay me $500.00 a month for 20 months.  I then assign this contract to Peggy.  Larry is the obligor, I am the assignor, and Peggy is the assignee.

Unless there is a statute that requires that certain language be used in an assignment or that the assignment be in writing, there are really no formal requirements for an assignment.  Any words which show the intent to transfer rights under a contract are sufficient to constitute an assignment.

I think Matthew's intention is pretty clear. What is it that you don't understand about this?

[BCB]

usai,

How is it that you can so precisely quote and reference internet citation of contract langue and definitions to fit your needs

but it is IMPOSSIBLE

for you to produce evident that you deleted from you wordpress website that could prove you are right.

THAT IS BECAUSE IT WOULD ONLY PROVE ALL THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST YOU.

Please produce Motion 80.

 

[repentance]

FWIW, I've contacted Matthew regarding this and will let you know his response.

[usagi]

usai,

How is it that you can so precisely quote and reference internet citation of contract langue and definitions to fit your needs

but it is IMPOSSIBLE

for you to produce evident that you deleted from you wordpress website that could prove you are right.

THAT IS BECAUSE IT WOULD ONLY PROVE ALL THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST YOU.

Please produce Motion 80.

 

BCB, this contract was for advertising banners paid for by CPA.

It is my fiduciary duty to shareholders to chase down TECSHARE and recover the money as he has clearly lied about work he did and broke his contract. Then I must pay that money to shareholders.

Go away. You're embarrassing yourself.

FWIW, I've contacted Matthew regarding this and will let you know his response.

Thank you. I was about to install skype again. I hate skype


NOTE: An acceptable remedy here is for TECSHARE to return the money to Matthew. However:

An assignment does not relieve the assignor of any obligation under the contract. An assignor continues to be bound by the obligations of the original contract unless the other party to the contract releases him. For example, the fact that a buyer assigns the right to goods under a contract does not terminate the buyer’s liability to make payment to the seller. (ibid)

I explicitly do not transfer to Matthew the right to state that the work has been completed. TECSHARE has promised me at least one more revision. So it is TECSHARE's choice of remedy; return the money to me, or to Matthew, or finish the work and then give it to me, or to Matthew. If he just gives me a psd file with what I already have, then he has broken his contract and lied about it, since he said he had worked on the art for a further period of more than a week, and I have not seen that work and given a revision order yet.

[BCB]

Usagi

It is your fiduciary responsibility to produce Motion 80 to prove that you did not intentionally defraud your investors.

But you can't produce Motion 80 because it will prove the core accusation against you.

That you are a scammer.

[usagi]

Usagi

It is your fiduciary responsibility to produce Motion 80 to prove that you did not intentionally defraud your investors.

But you can't produce Motion 80 because it will prove the core accusation against you.

That you are a scammer.

Stop hijacking my threads. I've already responded to you in PM over this. Go read your PMs.

[21after2]

It is precisely because you did not treat me fairly that I do not deal with you. Among other infractions, how dare you suggest I do not have the right to ask for what I have been promised under contract, and which was paid for?

Notice his careful wording here where he claims ownership, yet refuses to admit he made no such payment.

You violated our contract and YOU did not pay. In the court of law that means you have ZERO rights to any work I created. Just because an UNSOLICITED 3rd party paid for the work that was completed up to that point does not mean you have any right to claim completion of the contract. I was not compensated according to the contract, I was compensated by a 3rd party for work currently rendered. You are not owed high resolution images, you are owed what you have up to this point, and you already have it.

So you are saying I had no right to assign the debt to Matthew N. Wright, and therefore, you have not been paid?

http://contracts.uslegal.com/third-parties-and-assignments/

An assignment is a transfer of rights that a party has under a contract to another person, called an assignee.  The assigning party is called the assignor.  An assignee of a contract may generally sue directly on the contract rather than suing in the name of the assignor.  The other party to the original contract is called the obligor.  For example, suppose I sell my car to Larry for $10,000.00.  He does not have $10,000.00 in cash, but executes an agreement stating that he agrees to pay me $500.00 a month for 20 months.  I then assign this contract to Peggy.  Larry is the obligor, I am the assignor, and Peggy is the assignee.

Unless there is a statute that requires that certain language be used in an assignment or that the assignment be in writing, there are really no formal requirements for an assignment.  Any words which show the intent to transfer rights under a contract are sufficient to constitute an assignment.

I think Matthew's intention is pretty clear. What is it that you don't understand about this?

There's a flaw in your legal argument here: you were the one paying for the item in question, right? The assignment of the debt to an assignee is done by the person collecting payment, which would have been TECSHARE. Did TECSHARE contract Matthew as his assignee? Or did Matthew simply offer to pay him for the work he did?

In terms of payment for a good or service, you're the obligor here. Not TECSHARE.

[usagi]

There's a flaw in your legal argument here: you were the one paying for the item in question, right? The assignment of the debt to an assignee is done by the person collecting payment, which would have been TECSHARE. Did TECSHARE contract Matthew as his assignee? Or did Matthew simply offer to pay him for the work he did?

In terms of payment for a good or service, you're the obligor here. Not TECSHARE.

You're right but TECSHARE has stated that Matthew was the one that paid him. So he accepted that the transfer took place:

...Mathew M. Wright took mercy on you and paid for the contract...

and

...an UNSOLICITED 3rd party paid for the work that was completed...
...I was compensated by a 3rd party for work currently rendered.

This is just in this thread (he's stated the same in a few other threads, I will spare you the details). It is clear that he understands he has been paid in order to satisfy my obligation.


And while not material to his acceptance of the transfer, it's worth pointing out the spirit in which Matthew made the payment:

Usagi, there's no need to defend yourself I feel, as TECSHARE has already been paid for the work. I will be instructing him to finish the work and give it to you, as I recognize this as being a miscommunication. Do with them as you will, consider it as a gift regardless from a fan ^_^

[BCB]

Good call 21after2

There is a flaw in MOST of usagi's arguments

legal or otherwise.

[21after2]

There's a flaw in your legal argument here: you were the one paying for the item in question, right? The assignment of the debt to an assignee is done by the person collecting payment, which would have been TECSHARE. Did TECSHARE contract Matthew as his assignee? Or did Matthew simply offer to pay him for the work he did?

In terms of payment for a good or service, you're the obligor here. Not TECSHARE.

You're right but TECSHARE has stated that Matthew was the one that paid him. So he accepted that the transfer took place:

...Mathew M. Wright took mercy on you and paid for the contract...

If Matthew paid TECSHARE with the intention of paying for the contract and the goods it entailed, then I would think TECSHARE should provide him with the artwork. I see that someone is asking Matthew about the terms of the payment, so maybe that will help sort it out.

[usagi]

There's a flaw in your legal argument here: you were the one paying for the item in question, right? The assignment of the debt to an assignee is done by the person collecting payment, which would have been TECSHARE. Did TECSHARE contract Matthew as his assignee? Or did Matthew simply offer to pay him for the work he did?

In terms of payment for a good or service, you're the obligor here. Not TECSHARE.

You're right but TECSHARE has stated that Matthew was the one that paid him. So he accepted that the transfer took place:

...Mathew M. Wright took mercy on you and paid for the contract...

If Matthew paid TECSHARE with the intention of paying for the contract and the goods it entailed, then I would think TECSHARE should provide him with the artwork. I see that someone is asking Matthew about the terms of the payment, so maybe that will help sort it out.

Actually no. As I stated I refuse to transfer my right to the work I've been promised under contract. Matthew paid for it and TECSHARE agreed he paid for it. I want the work or the money returned. The money can be returned to me or to Matthew.

[BCB]

Usagi,

Clearly contracts, and law, and finance etc are not your forte.

[repentance]

If Matthew paid TECSHARE with the intention of paying for the contract and the goods it entailed, then I would think TECSHARE should provide him with the artwork. I see that someone is asking Matthew about the terms of the payment, so maybe that will help sort it out.

I have heard back from Matthew.  It's probably not what anyone wants to hear but it looks like both parties are telling the truth here.  Matthew did make a post saying that he would instruct Tecshare to finish the work and give it to usagi and that usagi should regard it as a gift.  From the information Matthew has shared with me it appears that he didn't actually do that when Tecshare contacted him about whether he (Matthew) wanted the files.

[21after2]

There's a flaw in your legal argument here: you were the one paying for the item in question, right? The assignment of the debt to an assignee is done by the person collecting payment, which would have been TECSHARE. Did TECSHARE contract Matthew as his assignee? Or did Matthew simply offer to pay him for the work he did?

In terms of payment for a good or service, you're the obligor here. Not TECSHARE.

You're right but TECSHARE has stated that Matthew was the one that paid him. So he accepted that the transfer took place:

...Mathew M. Wright took mercy on you and paid for the contract...

If Matthew paid TECSHARE with the intention of paying for the contract and the goods it entailed, then I would think TECSHARE should provide him with the artwork. I see that someone is asking Matthew about the terms of the payment, so maybe that will help sort it out.

Actually no. As I stated I refuse to transfer my right to the work I've been promised under contract. Matthew paid for it and TECSHARE agreed he paid for it. I want the work or the money returned. The money can be returned to me or to Matthew.

You didn't pay the contract. Matthew did. And you're refusing to transfer your end of the contract.

So TECSHARE has no legal obligation to provide the work to you, since you didn't pay for it.
And TECSHARE has no legal obligation to provide the work to Matthew, since he was paying on a contract he had no right to pay on (since you won't transfer your rights, as you claim).

If Matthew paid TECSHARE with the intention of paying for the contract and the goods it entailed, then I would think TECSHARE should provide him with the artwork. I see that someone is asking Matthew about the terms of the payment, so maybe that will help sort it out.

I have heard back from Matthew.  It's probably not what anyone wants to hear but it looks like both parties are telling the truth here.  Matthew did make a post saying that he would instruct Tecshare to finish the work and give it to usagi and that usagi should regard it as a gift.  From the information Matthew has shared with me it appears that he didn't actually do that when Tecshare contacted him about whether he (Matthew) wanted the files.

So Matthew and TECSHARE had this agreement that Matthew would pay for the contract and TECSHARE would give Matthew the files? And TECSHARE offered the files to Matthew? Do I have that right?

[repentance]

So Matthew and TECSHARE had this agreement that Matthew would pay for the contract and TECSHARE would give Matthew the files? And TECSHARE offered the files to Matthew? Do I have that right?

I'm still trying to clarify with Matthew whether that was a specific agreement.  Matthew's forum post outright states that he was going to tell Tecshare to complete the work and give it to usagi, which is what usagi is relying on here and he's not lying about that - the post still exists.  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103045.msg1131616#msg1131616

I can confirm that the files were offered to Matthew.  Matthew's recollection is that he did not tell Tecshare what to do with the files but merely responded that he didn't need them (rather than telling Tecshare to give them to usagi, as his post indicated he would, or obtaining the files from Tecshare and giving them to usagi himself).

For what it's worth, I think that Matthew saying "I will be instructing Tecshare..." does imply that Matthew believed paying Tecshare entitled him to direct what happened to the files.  usagi certainly didn't object to that at the time.

[21after2]

So Matthew and TECSHARE had this agreement that Matthew would pay for the contract and TECSHARE would give Matthew the files? And TECSHARE offered the files to Matthew? Do I have that right?

I'm still trying to clarify with Matthew whether that was a specific agreement.  Matthew's forum post outright states that he was going to tell Tecshare to complete the work and give it to usagi, which is what usagi is relying on here and he's not lying about that - the post still exists. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103045.msg1131616#msg1131616

I can confirm that the files were offered to Matthew.  Matthew's recollection is that he did not tell Tecshare what to do with the files but merely responded that he didn't need them (rather than telling Tecshare to give them to usagi, as his post indicated he would, or obtaining the files from Tecshare and giving them to usagi himself).

For what it's worth, I think that Matthew saying "I will be instructing Tecshare..." does imply that Matthew believed paying Tecshare entitled him to direct what happened to the files.  usagi certainly didn't object to that at the time.

So if anyone has a claim to the files, it's Matthew (or so it sounds like). At any rate, Usagi can't demand Tecshare to do anything with the files since Usagi didn't pay for them. If Matthew essentially "bought" the files, he and Tecshare need to sort out what to do with them.

[repentance]

So if anyone has a claim to the files, it's Matthew (or so it sounds like). At any rate, Usagi can't demand Tecshare to do anything with the files since Usagi didn't pay for them. If Matthew essentially "bought" the files, he and Tecshare need to sort out what to do with them.

I agree this would be best.  Certainly it's silly to maintain that anyone other than the person who actually paid for the work would be entitled to refund.  As Matthew has logged into the forum, I presume he'll discuss this directly with the parties involved.

[BCB]

usagi,

Did you ever bother to notice the pattern here.

You make ridiculous or uninformed statements and claims.

Someone comes along and points out your fallacious reasoning.

You argue with them and quote the internet to try to prove your point.

And always in the end it turns out you are wrong.

Can you please just admit that you don't know anything about contract law

or shareholder agreements

or trading

or finance

or accounting


Please

And 21after2,

Maybe you could follow usagi around the forums and help keep him honest.  I'm not sure if you've noticed but he's a handful.

It reallly is exhausting and we could use home help!

Thanks.

[BCB]

I also did not know that usagi and Matthew N Wright (another HERO SCAMMER https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=24749)  where in bed together.  It now makes sense.  They both live in Asia,  mistake hubris for intelligence and  have/had  insatiable desires for drama and attention.

[usagi]

There's a flaw in your legal argument here: you were the one paying for the item in question, right? The assignment of the debt to an assignee is done by the person collecting payment, which would have been TECSHARE. Did TECSHARE contract Matthew as his assignee? Or did Matthew simply offer to pay him for the work he did?

In terms of payment for a good or service, you're the obligor here. Not TECSHARE.

Above you said the flaw in my argument was that TECSHARE did not contract Matthew as the assignee.

I then proved that he did in fact agree to such a transfer on multiple occasions.

Now, you state:

You didn't pay the contract. Matthew did. And you're refusing to transfer your end of the contract.

So TECSHARE has no legal obligation to provide the work to you, since you didn't pay for it.
And TECSHARE has no legal obligation to provide the work to Matthew, since he was paying on a contract he had no right to pay on (since you won't transfer your rights, as you claim).

You seem to be under the impression that I must transfer all rights and obligations together but there is no requirement for me to do so, and you understand this as shown by the first quote above.

Furthermore;

I have heard back from Matthew.  It's probably not what anyone wants to hear but it looks like both parties are telling the truth here.  Matthew did make a post saying that he would instruct Tecshare to finish the work and give it to usagi and that usagi should regard it as a gift.  From the information Matthew has shared with me it appears that he didn't actually do that when Tecshare contacted him about whether he (Matthew) wanted the files.

I now demand that the work be finished and given to me, and/or the money be returned, either to me or to Matthew. Any one of these three options is an acceptable settlement for me. It is my duty and my right as issuer to speak for all CPA investors in this matter as they would become the sole beneficiaries of this claim.

[21after2]

There's a flaw in your legal argument here: you were the one paying for the item in question, right? The assignment of the debt to an assignee is done by the person collecting payment, which would have been TECSHARE. Did TECSHARE contract Matthew as his assignee? Or did Matthew simply offer to pay him for the work he did?

In terms of payment for a good or service, you're the obligor here. Not TECSHARE.

Above you said the flaw in my argument was that TECSHARE did not contract Matthew as the assignee.

I then proved that he did in fact agree to such a transfer on multiple occasions.

Now, you state:

You didn't pay the contract. Matthew did. And you're refusing to transfer your end of the contract.

So TECSHARE has no legal obligation to provide the work to you, since you didn't pay for it.
And TECSHARE has no legal obligation to provide the work to Matthew, since he was paying on a contract he had no right to pay on (since you won't transfer your rights, as you claim).

You seem to be under the impression that I must transfer all rights and obligations together but there is no requirement for me to do so. This isn't an uncommon case. For example sometimes a parent will pay for their children's education. This does not mean the student is not owed time in class.

Furthermore;

I have heard back from Matthew.  It's probably not what anyone wants to hear but it looks like both parties are telling the truth here.  Matthew did make a post saying that he would instruct Tecshare to finish the work and give it to usagi and that usagi should regard it as a gift.  From the information Matthew has shared with me it appears that he didn't actually do that when Tecshare contacted him about whether he (Matthew) wanted the files.

I now demand that the work be finished and given to me, and/or the money be returned, either to me or to Matthew. Any one of these three options is an acceptable settlement for me and I will speak for all CPA investors on that as the issuer.

Why should the money be refunded to you? You never paid it. And Matthew can request his own refund if he wants one. Any CPA is going to take their side on this over yours.

There is no requirement to transfer all your rights and obligations together, but you didn't transfer anything at all. Matthew and Tecshare possibly worked out some sort of deal together outside of your involvement, which gives you no right to demand anything from either of them. You haven't paid for the files you contracted Tecshare for, so you have no right to demand the files from him.

The flaw in your argument was that you put yourself in the shoes of the assignor, which gave Matthew the ability to receive payments on your behalf. You are not the assignor. You are the obligor. You're not really in a position to demand anything.

I've read on this board that you're involved in some sort of business, but I can't imagine you leading investors who have confidence in your financial ability after all this.

[usagi]

You didn't pay the contract. Matthew did. And you're refusing to transfer your end of the contract.

So TECSHARE has no legal obligation to provide the work to you, since you didn't pay for it.
And TECSHARE has no legal obligation to provide the work to Matthew, since he was paying on a contract he had no right to pay on (since you won't transfer your rights, as you claim).

There is no requirement to transfer all your rights and obligations together,

Then stop trying to claim it. It's a very weak defense and I've already satisfied your request for proof. This made you appear extremely biased.

Why should the money be refunded to you?

I don't care. I outlaid three acceptable responses. One of them is returning the money to Matthew, as you seem to suggest. Fine, whatever.

Matthew and Tecshare possibly worked out some sort of deal together outside of your involvement, which gives you no right to demand anything from either of them.

Don't waste my time with "probably". Wanna hear something? Several people have told me there is an organized campaign to defame me. That is a fact. Based on that, you probably were asked to come here and troll me. Now I say --> That probably makes you guilty of fraud.

But does it? No. It's mere speculation. Please do not spam the forums with useless speculation.

What TECSHARE, Matthew and myself have said is very clear. Stop posting here. Your input of speculation is not required and you have already voiced your opinion. Thank you for that.

[21after2]

You didn't pay the contract. Matthew did. And you're refusing to transfer your end of the contract.

So TECSHARE has no legal obligation to provide the work to you, since you didn't pay for it.
And TECSHARE has no legal obligation to provide the work to Matthew, since he was paying on a contract he had no right to pay on (since you won't transfer your rights, as you claim).

There is no requirement to transfer all your rights and obligations together,

Then stop trying to claim that -- it's a very weak defense as I've already satisfied your request for proof. It makes you appear biased.

Why should the money be refunded to you?

I don't care. I outlaid three acceptable responses. One of them is returning the money to Matthew, as you seem to suggest. Fine, whatever.

Matthew and Tecshare possibly worked out some sort of deal together outside of your involvement, which gives you no right to demand anything from either of them.

Don't waste my time with "probably". Wanna hear something? Several people have told me there is an organized campaign to defame me. That is a fact. Based on that, you probably were asked to come here and troll me. Now I say --> That probably makes you guilty of fraud.

But does it? No. It's mere speculation. Please do not spam the forums with useless speculation.

What TECSHARE, Matthew and myself have said is very clear. Stop posting here. Your input of speculation is not required and you have already voiced your opinion. Thank you for that.

I'm not trying to claim that. You are.

Refunding money to the person who did not pay it is not an acceptable response. Greedy on your end, sure. But not acceptable.

It's a fact that people have told you there is a campaign to defame you, not a fact that it's actually true. I have no idea what your business is or why I should care. All I know the situation of you asking for a product you didn't pay for, or else a refund of the money you never paid. And yes, this is my speculation, just like you're speculating that you deserve something you didn't pay for. Nevertheless, this isn't a conspiracy as much as it is common sense.

And you're very welcome

[usagi]

You didn't pay the contract. Matthew did. And you're refusing to transfer your end of the contract.

So TECSHARE has no legal obligation to provide the work to you, since you didn't pay for it.
And TECSHARE has no legal obligation to provide the work to Matthew, since he was paying on a contract he had no right to pay on (since you won't transfer your rights, as you claim).

There is no requirement to transfer all your rights and obligations together,

Then stop trying to claim that -- it's a very weak defense as I've already satisfied your request for proof. It makes you appear biased.

Why should the money be refunded to you?

I don't care. I outlaid three acceptable responses. One of them is returning the money to Matthew, as you seem to suggest. Fine, whatever.

Matthew and Tecshare possibly worked out some sort of deal together outside of your involvement, which gives you no right to demand anything from either of them.

Don't waste my time with "probably". Wanna hear something? Several people have told me there is an organized campaign to defame me. That is a fact. Based on that, you probably were asked to come here and troll me. Now I say --> That probably makes you guilty of fraud.

But does it? No. It's mere speculation. Please do not spam the forums with useless speculation.

What TECSHARE, Matthew and myself have said is very clear. Stop posting here. Your input of speculation is not required and you have already voiced your opinion. Thank you for that.

I'm not trying to claim that. You are.

This is a non sequitur. You said quoted above "You didn't pay the contract. Matthew did. And you're refusing to transfer your end of the contract." From this you state I am claiming that the transfer of debt requires me to accept the transfer of performance, which I denied. In other words, when it is convenient for you to make an argument that the transfer of debt alone requires the agreement of the obligee you make it; when it was shown this was accepted by TECSHARE you not only shifted your argument to state that the transfer of debt requires the transfer of performance, but you stated that it was myself who was claiming so (above, emphasis mine).

If this was so, then you would not have been able to claim that the transfer of debt requires the permission of the obligee as was your original contention. And I would have no need to correct you.

In short, you've been caught lying.

[BCB]

Several people have told me there is an organized campaign to defame me.

The depths of your ignorance is astounding.    Several people had to tell you that there is an organized campaign to defame you??

Really usagi??

I don't think there are enough shovels in bitcoin land for you to dig your hole any deeper.

There are dozens of people on this forum who know you are an idiot and must think you are certifiable by now!

You keep talking about your precious share-holders.  I begin to wonder if they even exist.  So far your only defenders are Trade Fortress and augustocroppo.  

Even 21after2 (who registered less then one month ago) figured it out in no time after you began ranting (and distracting) in a thread that should never have been reopened.  And yes usagi,  21after2 and I and vampire, and puppet, and deprived et al ALL joined bitcointalk.org and are being paid solely to defame your spotless reputation and bring ruin to fabulous wealth and success you've brought to you admiring investors with you enviable financial acumen!

You continue to defame and embarrass YOURSELF.  It is unbelievable.  You just don't get it.

[21after2]

You didn't pay the contract. Matthew did. And you're refusing to transfer your end of the contract.

So TECSHARE has no legal obligation to provide the work to you, since you didn't pay for it.
And TECSHARE has no legal obligation to provide the work to Matthew, since he was paying on a contract he had no right to pay on (since you won't transfer your rights, as you claim).

There is no requirement to transfer all your rights and obligations together,

Then stop trying to claim that -- it's a very weak defense as I've already satisfied your request for proof. It makes you appear biased.

Why should the money be refunded to you?

I don't care. I outlaid three acceptable responses. One of them is returning the money to Matthew, as you seem to suggest. Fine, whatever.

Matthew and Tecshare possibly worked out some sort of deal together outside of your involvement, which gives you no right to demand anything from either of them.

Don't waste my time with "probably". Wanna hear something? Several people have told me there is an organized campaign to defame me. That is a fact. Based on that, you probably were asked to come here and troll me. Now I say --> That probably makes you guilty of fraud.

But does it? No. It's mere speculation. Please do not spam the forums with useless speculation.

What TECSHARE, Matthew and myself have said is very clear. Stop posting here. Your input of speculation is not required and you have already voiced your opinion. Thank you for that.

I'm not trying to claim that. You are.

This is a non sequitur. You said quoted above "You didn't pay the contract. Matthew did. And you're refusing to transfer your end of the contract." From this you state I am claiming that the transfer of debt requires me to accept the transfer of performance, which I denied. In other words, when it is convenient for you to make an argument that the transfer of debt alone requires the agreement of the obligee you make it; when it was shown this was accepted by TECSHARE you not only shifted your argument to state that the transfer of debt requires the transfer of performance, but you stated that it was myself who was claiming so (above, emphasis mine).

If this was so, then you would not have been able to claim that the transfer of debt requires the permission of the obligee as was your original contention. And I would have no need to correct you.

In short, you've been caught lying.

I don't recall saying it required the agreement of the obligee. As much as I can see, you essentially defaulted on your end of the agreement and someone else offered to complete the sale. At that point it's out of your hands. I said you claimed you didn't want to transfer the rights to Matthew. If Matthew and Tecshare made some sort of agreement regarding the files, you're no longer in the loop. You refused to pay for the files, so Tecshare (possibly) sold them to someone else. I haven't seen the post yet of Tecshare confirming that, however (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it).

As far as I can tell: you hired someone to provide artwork for you. They started creating the artwork and possibly finished it (or were about to). You didn't pay for it. A third party offered to buy it and sent a payment to the artist. The artist and this third party possibly worked out a deal for the sale. You want the artist to either give you the artwork that you never paid for or to refund someone else's money to you. The artist is refusing to do so and you're upset. You want my speculation? You're probably trying to drag the argument on as endlessly and convolutedly as possible until everyone gives up and gives you what you want.

But if calling me a liar makes you feel better, go on ahead

[BCB]

You want my speculation? You're probably trying to drag the argument on as endlessly and convolutedly as possible until everyone gives up and gives you what you want.

But if calling me a liar makes you feel better, go on ahead

You are not fooling ANYBODY usagi....

[Deprived]

So Matthew and TECSHARE had this agreement that Matthew would pay for the contract and TECSHARE would give Matthew the files? And TECSHARE offered the files to Matthew? Do I have that right?

I'm still trying to clarify with Matthew whether that was a specific agreement.  Matthew's forum post outright states that he was going to tell Tecshare to complete the work and give it to usagi, which is what usagi is relying on here and he's not lying about that - the post still exists. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103045.msg1131616#msg1131616

I can confirm that the files were offered to Matthew.  Matthew's recollection is that he did not tell Tecshare what to do with the files but merely responded that he didn't need them (rather than telling Tecshare to give them to usagi, as his post indicated he would, or obtaining the files from Tecshare and giving them to usagi himself).

For what it's worth, I think that Matthew saying "I will be instructing Tecshare..." does imply that Matthew believed paying Tecshare entitled him to direct what happened to the files.  usagi certainly didn't object to that at the time.

So if anyone has a claim to the files, it's Matthew (or so it sounds like). At any rate, Usagi can't demand Tecshare to do anything with the files since Usagi didn't pay for them. If Matthew essentially "bought" the files, he and Tecshare need to sort out what to do with them.

Except Matthew never had the right to buy the files - as the work was done for usagi.

The correct way to resolve the situation would probably be (doesn't have to occur in this order):

Usagi pays TECSHARE
TECSHARE gives the files to usagi
TECHSHARE returns payment to Matthew.

Then everyone would have discharged their obligations under the contract.

Had Matthew simply said in his post that he was paying on behalf of usagi (and nothing more) then it would be slightly different.  But Matthew clearly laid claim to the images - by stating that he was going to give instruction about their disposition (which he apparently never did).  So either:

A.  He HAD the right to dispose of the images (I'd disagree with this - you can't buy the right to product already subject to a contract with someone else) in which case he had the right to change his mind and NOT send such instructions.
B.  He had NO right to dispose of the images - in which case, given his claim to HAVE such rights, his payment can reasonably be viewed as a gift/bribe to drop the scammer accusation.

What I'm not clear on is whether the payment made was equal to the entire payment that would be due under the contract.  If it was full payment then, despite the above, it would seem reasonable and fair (though not obligatory) to provide the files to usagi.  If, on the other hand, it was only a part payment (and there was more work and further payments involved) then the lack of instructions to proceed or further payment would indicate termination of the contract - and TECSHARE has absolutely no obligation or even moral duty to do anything at all.

[BadBear]

So Matthew and TECSHARE had this agreement that Matthew would pay for the contract and TECSHARE would give Matthew the files? And TECSHARE offered the files to Matthew? Do I have that right?

I'm still trying to clarify with Matthew whether that was a specific agreement.  Matthew's forum post outright states that he was going to tell Tecshare to complete the work and give it to usagi, which is what usagi is relying on here and he's not lying about that - the post still exists. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103045.msg1131616#msg1131616

I can confirm that the files were offered to Matthew.  Matthew's recollection is that he did not tell Tecshare what to do with the files but merely responded that he didn't need them (rather than telling Tecshare to give them to usagi, as his post indicated he would, or obtaining the files from Tecshare and giving them to usagi himself).

For what it's worth, I think that Matthew saying "I will be instructing Tecshare..." does imply that Matthew believed paying Tecshare entitled him to direct what happened to the files.  usagi certainly didn't object to that at the time.

So if anyone has a claim to the files, it's Matthew (or so it sounds like). At any rate, Usagi can't demand Tecshare to do anything with the files since Usagi didn't pay for them. If Matthew essentially "bought" the files, he and Tecshare need to sort out what to do with them.

Except Matthew never had the right to buy the files - as the work was done for usagi.

The correct way to resolve the situation would probably be (doesn't have to occur in this order):

Usagi pays TECSHARE
TECSHARE gives the files to usagi
TECHSHARE returns payment to Matthew.

Then everyone would have discharged their obligations under the contract.

Had Matthew simply said in his post that he was paying on behalf of usagi (and nothing more) then it would be slightly different.  But Matthew clearly laid claim to the images - by stating that he was going to give instruction about their disposition (which he apparently never did).  So either:

A.  He HAD the right to dispose of the images (I'd disagree with this - you can't buy the right to product already subject to a contract with someone else) in which case he had the right to change his mind and NOT send such instructions.
B.  He had NO right to dispose of the images - in which case, given his claim to HAVE such rights, his payment can reasonably be viewed as a gift/bribe to drop the scammer accusation.

What I'm not clear on is whether the payment made was equal to the entire payment that would be due under the contract.  If it was full payment then, despite the above, it would seem reasonable and fair (though not obligatory) to provide the files to usagi.  If, on the other hand, it was only a part payment (and there was more work and further payments involved) then the lack of instructions to proceed or further payment would indicate termination of the contract - and TECSHARE has absolutely no obligation or even moral duty to do anything at all.

This is what I was thinking as well. If Usagi now wants to enforce the original  contract (that he originally broke), then he can't make any demands until he fulfills his end of the bargain. It's not proper to only enforce part of a contract, especially when it's the only part that benefits Usagi.

Of course that would mean tecshare now has a good case for a scammer tag if that's the way Usagi wants to go.

[usagi]

Had Matthew simply said in his post that he was paying on behalf of usagi (and nothing more) then it would be slightly different.  But Matthew clearly laid claim to the images - ...

This is what I was thinking as well. If Usagi now wants to enforce the original  contract (that he originally broke), then he can't make any demands until he fulfills his end of the bargain. It's not proper to only enforce part of a contract, especially when it's the only part that benefits Usagi.

Of course that would mean tecshare now has a good case for a scammer tag if that's the way Usagi wants to go.

Both of you are appear unfamiliar with the common law of Assignment. I've already demonstrated that there was an assignment agreement between TECSHARE and Matthew for the payment. This does not mean that they have a right to assign my right to the performance (work).

Further, Matthew's instructions were clear: the work is to be given to me. I am making this primarily because TECSHARE said I did not have a right to ask. I do, in fact.

BadBear I urge you to review assignment law, it is a part of common law (the law of the land). A quote if I may; "Specifically, the effect of a valid assignment is to extinguish privity (in other words, contractual relationship, including right to sue) ..."

Yet you appear to be saying even though TECSHARE is on the record stating he has accepted payment from Matthew for the sole purpose of fufulling the contract, I am still liable for the payment.

Can you please explain why you believe TECSHARE has a right to ask for a scammer tag despite the fact he's on record accepting the payment from matthew in fufillment of my obligation? And why somehow, down the line, TECSHARE doesn't have to keep his end of the bargain? I'll go with your ruling either way, but I want an explanation. It doesn't seem logical.

[Deprived]

Further, Matthew's instructions were clear: the work is to be given to me. I am making this primarily because TECSHARE said I did not have a right to ask. I do, in fact.

This is where you're doing your usual trick - saying what you WISH was said rather than what was actually said.

Matthew said he was GOING TO give instructions - there's no evidence he ever actually did so.

You seem to want to have it both ways - that Matthew is able to give instructions, but that if he hasn't you still can.  Did Matthew have the right to give instructions in respect of the artwork?  You argue NO - then argue that he gave instructions which should be followed.

Common-sense suggests he should give you the artwork.  But if you want the artwork and refused to pay for it then common-sense suggests you should get a scammer tag - as you're asking for something you had a contract to pay for, are accepting it's of value to you (by requesting it) yet have never paid for it and show no inclination to do so.

You told him at the time that you had no need for the artwork - so hard to see how he was ever expected to think you wanted it.

If you steal something from a shop and some other random customer pays for it you are still a thief - and it's dubious what title you have to the goods you took.
If you refuse to pay for something you were obliged to by contract and some other scammer pays it on your behalf you're still a scammer.

You have this strange idea that a scammer who gets caught and repays is no longer a scammer - hence your constant harping on about reparations removing scammer tags.  It's a horrible idea - as it basically says it's fine to scam so long as you pay up (or have someone else do so on your behalf) if you're caught.

[Deprived]

3. Matthew pays Tecshare for renumeration and asks Tecshare to gives the files to Usagi.

Where does he say this?  You're misreading what was said in the same way usagi is.

I see him say " I will be instructing him to finish the work and give it to you, as I recognize this as being a miscommunication."

But that's future tense that he WILL be instructing him.  Nowhere do I see any claim that Matthew ever gave such instructions - and unless I'm misreading the recent correspondence with Matthew, Matthew accepts he likely never did so.  Or are these instructions in some other thread?  Or is it your contention that saying you WILL do something is identical to actually doing it?

[TECSHARE]

Let me sum it up for you. We both agreed to a contract. You paid nothing and broke it, thereby invalidating the contract in its entirety. A 3rd party decided to pay me unsolicited with no agreement in place between us (not the full invalidated contract payment amount but payment for work already rendered). In summation - you have no rights. If you like I can reopen my scammer thread if that is what you want. Are you interested in reopening it?

[usagi]

I didn't read any posts in this thread since my last one. They wouldn't affect my decision (which comes from a discussion I had in private).

I've decided to drop it and apologize, and lock the thead.

I'm sorry TECSHARE. What would you like me to do?

You can send me a PM about it.