Tecshare lied about me scamming him

[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.

[1713536765]

1713536765

[1713536765]

1713536765

[1713536765]

1713536765

[1713536765]

1713536765

[1713536765]

1713536765

[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.