Pages:
Author

Topic: Tecshare lied about me scamming him - page 2. (Read 5368 times)

member
Activity: 112
Merit: 16
January 03, 2013, 10:52:52 PM
#38
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?
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
January 03, 2013, 10:49:32 PM
#37
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.
BCB
vip
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
January 03, 2013, 10:45:58 PM
#36
Usagi,

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

vip
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
January 03, 2013, 10:39:35 PM
#35
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.
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 16
January 03, 2013, 10:36:08 PM
#34
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.
BCB
vip
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
January 03, 2013, 10:35:02 PM
#33
Good call 21after2

There is a flaw in MOST of usagi's arguments

legal or otherwise.
vip
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
January 03, 2013, 10:32:06 PM
#32
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 ^_^
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 16
January 03, 2013, 10:19:35 PM
#31
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.
vip
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
January 03, 2013, 10:19:11 PM
#30
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.
BCB
vip
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
January 03, 2013, 10:16:37 PM
#29
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.

vip
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
January 03, 2013, 10:11:34 PM
#28
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 Smiley


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.
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
January 03, 2013, 10:11:24 PM
#27
FWIW, I've contacted Matthew regarding this and will let you know his response.
BCB
vip
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
January 03, 2013, 10:05:45 PM
#26
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.

 
vip
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
January 03, 2013, 09:56:34 PM
#25
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?
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
January 03, 2013, 09:43:40 PM
#24
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.
vip
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
January 03, 2013, 09:32:18 PM
#23
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.
BCB
vip
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
January 03, 2013, 09:19:15 PM
#22
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
vip
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
January 03, 2013, 09:08:50 PM
#21
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.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
January 03, 2013, 07:50:47 PM
#20
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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/counter-evidence-for-the-bcb-thread-134011

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1427043
(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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/payment-not-delivered-work-rendered-for-usagi-payment-made-by-matthew-n-102798

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/tecshare-lied-about-me-scamming-him-103045

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.
full member
Activity: 367
Merit: 100
January 03, 2013, 02:51:04 PM
#19
He has to be annoying, else the scammers win.
Pages:
Jump to: