Tecshare lied about me scamming him

[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.

[1714668902]

1714668902

[1714668902]

1714668902

[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.