Not true. Contracts were sold with a specific payout formula. He is no longer adhering to the original payout formula, therefore he is violating the contracts.
Nice idea Syke ... I never saw a contract though, not sure there ever was one ... If you got one then please share.
I'm not a lawyer, but I certainly had to have an understanding of contract law when I studied management all those years ago.
Even today contracts are a normal part of my business life.
In a nutshell that is
Offer
Acceptance
Consideration
Certainty
To date, PBM are still paying a weekly "consideration" even though it's much less than is desirable, it's still being paid
It could be claimed that there is no "certainty" of the future for the contract, this is moot and yet to be tested, but is likely.
So on that basis, it's going to be a long tough call to prove default of contract, and frankly, I think that at the moment the ability to prove default is lacking because there is a difficulty proving "intent" on the part of Boyko to default.
Once weekly payouts stop or an announcement is made that the agreed 5 year term will not be honored is made, then there will be a clear and potentially provable breach of the contract.
But as the "offer" and the "consideration" have never been defined in "terms of the law" it's going to be a difficult case.
* hey, investor respect, is that enough for you to accuse me of being Jason Boyko again ??
If it's not, let me know and I'll try and do better next time OK ?