Opinion about Dave

Moes, did you have him agree to any form of contract?

 

The answer to that question is no there wasn't any contract which is what Roary stated in the dispute.

 

As already stated (multiple times), you had no contract so logically he didn't break any contract(s).

Business is rough, but he didn't scam anyone, so why can't he be trusted?

I've been buying multiple times gold from Dave and never had any problems, he's been a nice guy to me.

 

Moes.. You didn't have a contract, stop trying. Nothing can/will be done about this. Welcome to the cuthroat world of business.

 

I love how everyones going on about contracts. Shut the fuck up lol this is a site of 12 year old traders. Nobody makes contracts. I think its simply a case of Dave not keeping to his word. This doesn't make him a scammer, or untrusted.

Is the complaint you're making that you want Dave to stop using your contacts to conduct his Ikov business that you are no longer involved in because you were blackmailing the owners and got yourself IP banned? People can choose who they want to trade with, you have no say in this, and you cannot stop people from trading with Dave.

Seems to me like all you're saying is, if I can't have it, nobody can. Starting to look a bit childish now. Drop it moes.

 

As far as I am aware all the elements exist for there to be a contract (Contracts do not require a signature, only that a "a reasonably bystander would regard the conduct of the offeree, including his silence, as signalling to the offeror that his offer has been accepted") The fact that Dave worked for moes and agreed to the essential term below indicates acceptance. Consideration, intent, and certainty shouldn't be issues here.

The major source of contention is this term ""if you promise me you're not gonna start a new business with the same supplier, then I can share that contact with you"

Now to me, this is an essential term in the contract, moes would not have moved forward with the contract had Dave not agreed to this term. A breach of an essential term allows moes to terminate the contract, and claim damages. Unless you with the classification of the term as an essential one, then you accept that if there is a breach, Dave must pay damages.

If you can show that Dave "started a new business with the same supplier" then Dave has breached the contract, and this case has been decided incorrectly. The term has two parts to it, (1) Dave has to start a new business [we know this has occurred], (2) Dave has to have used the 'same supplier' [this I don't know].

On point (2) Roary has stated:

To me this indicates that Dave has not breached point (2), and thus has not breached an essential term of the contract, meaning you have no right to damages, thus your claim for Dave to refund you x monies has no basis.

That's my independent analysis as a 3rd year Law student if it means anything to you.

 

I think all staff members should be held accountable for their word. If a staff member can say one thing, and do another..isn't that a little shady?

That's like him middlemanning a trade and not keeping his end of the bargain, because their is no legal binding contract? LOL

 

Nowhere in the text did Moes say that he is allowed to terminate his business and screw dave out of work either. If moes can no longer use said contact then I don't see the problem. I believe the terms Moes was referring to was to prevent Dave from screwing Moes over if he gave Dave his contacts info. However, seeing as how Moes bit his own hand here and Dave isn't doing anything to go behind Moes back as Moes can't use that supplier anymore... I see no relevance to the terms.

 

Like you say, nowhere in the text does it say that, so it is not an express term in the contract, so the contract can still be afoot despite moes actions. This line of argument only works if you imply the aforementioned term; implying terms is not common, and "it is not enough that it is reasonable to imply a term; it must be necessary to do so to give business efficacy to the contract". I'm sure you might be able to imply a term, and even argue that it is an essential term, or serious intermediate term (the breach of both giving rise to a right to terminate). My analysis didn't deal with that however (you can easily argue it both ways, no implied term, or implied term that gave rise to breach), as moes was interested in whether the decision was decided correctly with reference to Daves actions in dealing with his suppliers and contacts which has more concrete factual references.

 

Sorry ^ that's all I read. My point still stands, you're trying to argue this at a legal perspective, this is a black market site, half the stuff on here isn't legal. People selling gold and gambling breaks laws, and much more. The fact that matters is the reason behind why Moes even said that to Dave. If it was simply to prevent Dave from stealing Moes contact then by all means Dave should be able to proceed with using the contact because Moes F'd it up for himself. There's nothing wrong with that Dave did/is doing in my opinion. Not like Dave caused the IP ban.

 

Sythe, the owner of this website follows common law principles. I am merely applying them. Anyway, I'm not going to reply any further; you should note that my conclusion is in favor of Dave on the supposition that he is not using the 'same supplier', which, as Roary seems to suggest is that Dave isn't.

 

I'm with Dave on it. You effectively put him out of work and ruined your business. Had you not acted the way you did Dave would have not opened up his own shop.

Whether Dave does or doesn't use the contacts is almost irrelevant when those very same contacts don't want to talk or do business with you.

Why isn't this thread in the spam forum?

 

I don't know anything of the situation between Moes and Dave, however I think your logic is very flawed.

How can we trust Sythe staff to be impartial and fair if they don't enforce the law we all agree to live by?
It would be another thing if they overrwrote the law(s) in question, but I don't see any thread/post detailing such changes.

I am aware laws can vary wildly from judiciary to judiciary. Notwithstanding, I believe the breach of an agreed upon contract(verbal or otherwise) shouldn't simply be pardoned as such or ignored.
That being said, I know nothing of the situation between these two, but if Dave did in fact breach an agreed upon contract, he should be held accountable. Otherwise Moes has no grounds to seek reparation(s).

But that's just my 2c.

 

Moe you got to just take this on the chin, learn something from this experience. When it comes to business, get things in writing. You don't know who you can and cannot trust. It comes across to me that you both had differing ideas about what could and couldn't be done with regard to your contract. You maybe should have been more specific, at least you'll learn from this to guard your business contacts better.

 

This is 100% correct.

If in fact Dave did use Moes' contacts to start his own business he did in fact breach the verbal agreement (technically written since its on Skype) they had and he should be held accountable.

But does Moes' have proof that Dave used his contacts to start his own business? I don't think so and that'll be hard to prove anyway.

 

Also, noncompete agreements have to be reasonable - by banning him the entire market it is not reasonable.

Also - noncompete agreements are created to protect a business's interests and property. Since you no longer sell gold you have no interests to protect, therefore you noncompete agreement (should one exist) is no longer enforceable. In a court of law you have to prove damages - since you no longer trade there are no damages for you to prove.

 

If the non-compete agreement was only in reference to that "same supplier", not the whole market, then that seems reasonable to me.

 

I'm going to retract what I said before. Contracts don't have to be physically issued between parties. It can be verbal as long as you have proof of the terms and conditions being accepted. What anyone says really doesn't change anything at this point. I do think rules of contracts and settlements need to be added for partnership businesses in the event something like this happens again.

 

In general you're right, contracts can be made verbal, but not in every case. For example when you're starting a job (atleast in germany). You can't just do it verbal because all the terms must be clear and defined. It also can/must be used as a proof when there are law/ basically any kind of issues and you have to go to the tribunal to get a judgment by the benches.

So I'd say, in this case they should've indeed actually made a contract. (Obviously this is Sythe but still, it's real work and real money to be made/lost.)

Please ignore my probably overall not so good english, hope you were still able to understand what I'm trying to say...:embar:

 

Thank you for your input.

The guy Dave is currently using for his business was my main supplier during the 2 months that Dave was working with me. However the week before Dave started using him he stopped supplying for a while and he temporary offered a different technique to keep us safe. In my opinion he's still the supplier I did not want him to use. Roary told me Dave is allowed to use him but he has to stop using him when he starts supplying again (he'll start supplying again soon) IMO Dave should have never accepted any deals from him. It's also impossible for me to check if he starts supplying again. I was extremely careful when he asked me to enter my business. As you can see I've only given him a single restriction because his response was that he wouldn't start a new business at all.