Opinion about Dave

[malakadang]

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 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.

Another potential issue that I didn't mention in that post, although talked about in subsequent posts, is whether your conduct (whatever it was) that resulted in you no longer being supplied by that supplier gives rise to a right to terminate on Dave's part. In order to give rise to a right to terminate, it must be considered a term in the contract (express or implied). I am assuming it is not express (you guys said something like if you blackmail x I can use him as a supplier), so it would have to be implied. If I remember correctly, there are differing opinions on the tests to be applied depending on the jurisdiction you're from, but the main factor is whether it 'goes without saying', and is 'reasonable' (a good test for this is if a bystander suggested you guys make that an express term, would you both agree).

If we can answer yes to both those questions, then that means it was an implied term of the contract that your conduct breach, and would give rise to a right to terminate on the part of Dave. This means that after that point, your agreement was no more, so Dave would have been allowed to deal with that supplier. The only potential minor issue here is did Dave elect to terminate the contract, or affirm it (give you a second change). As far as I know, Dave contacted the supplier soon after, so to me it indicates that he did elect to terminate the contract.

So, the main question is, was there was an implied term in the contract, that, if it existed, your conduct would have breached. A simple test, as above, whether if a bystander suggested you guys make the implied term an express term, that you both would have agreed.

As for what Dave ought to do, it seems that since he is no longer allowed to deal with that supplier (after he begins to resume supplying), that some part of your agreement is being honoured. As for his conduct within those 2 months, I think he may have thought that the deal was off after your conduct with the supplier, and his primary intention was to to make amends with the supplier (he may have also wanted to take your place, or maybe the supplier made that offer to him, that part is only speculation). However his actions don't seem entirely out of line, given your conduct (blackmail as far as I'm aware), and his expectations of the agreement you two originally had.

EDIT: I think the misunderstanding, and your frustration is simply this. You would not have entered into the agreement with Dave in the first place if there was any circumstance that Dave could have 'taken' your supplier in the future, you might have thought that even with your actions, Dave wasn't allowed to 'take' your supplier per the agreement. Dave however, might have had the understanding that under such extreme circumstances, he was allowed to, and did; he also, like you, may not have entered into the agreement if such conduct would not allow him to terminate the agreement.

 

[Moes]

There were no implied or express terms in the contract that would give Dave the right to terminate. Dave's intention was to join in on my sales and to make me more money as well(more customers owing to high availability). I would not have agreed if anything could cause Dave to run with any of my contacts. I did not specify more restrictions because Dave told me he wouldn't start his own business at all.

proof of intentions http://i.gyazo.com/3a82016a864cf9cc5255dec95b053d19.png

I think he may have thought that the deal was off after your conduct with the supplier, and his primary intention was to to make amends with the supplier (he may have also wanted to take your place, or maybe the supplier made that offer to him, that part is only speculation). However his actions don't seem entirely out of line, given your conduct (blackmail as far as I'm aware), and his expectations of the agreement you two originally had.

He didn't want to make amends with the supplier instead of that he told the supplier that he had nothing to do with the situation: http://i.gyazo.com/876183ab3929dcf9c2a3e508fea00801.png and he accepted what the supplier offered him without informing me about this all.

http://i.gyazo.com/7f254e502b563db28a2f95569f8fe3f9.png
http://i.gyazo.com/3a82016a864cf9cc5255dec95b053d19.png

As I've shown in some proof above Dave's intention was clearly to join in on my sales and make some profit and to make me more profit as well. His intention was NOT to start a new business that's why I proceeded with giving him my contacts.

Something else slightly off topic, he moved a lot of vouches from my thread to his own ikov thread to make it look like he has had a succesful business for a long time. is that allowed?

 

[malakadang]

There were no implied or express terms in the contract that would give Dave the right to terminate. Dave's intention was to join in on my sales and to make me more money as well(more customers owing to high availability). I would not have agreed if anything could cause Dave to run with any of my contacts. I did not specify more restrictions because Dave told me he wouldn't start his own business at all.

proof of intentions http://i.gyazo.com/3a82016a864cf9cc5255dec95b053d19.png

I can accept the argument that there was an express essential term that if Dave stole your supplier, he would have breached the contract. The problem is, Daves alleged breach occurred after your alleged breach, so in order for your argument to succeed, you must first defeat his, since your breach allows him to terminate the contract, thus his actions are no longer considered a breach, since the contract has been terminated.

Yes Dave did intend to join in on your sales, however in order for you to sell, this presupposes a supplier to supply you with goods to sell. This requires a good relationship with said supplier. In order for the business to operate, and your deal to operate, a good relationship with the supplier is a necessary precondition. The fact that you have lost your supplier, and can now no longer sell is indicative of the sheer importance of having a supplier, and a good relationship with one. Thus, it can easily be argued that actions contrary to the maintenance of such a good relationship are a violation of an implied term, since such a term is necessary for the functioning of the business and agreement. Like I said previously, I do not think Dave would have entered into the agreement if he knew that you blackmailing the supplier, ie destroying the good relationship, and the precondition for the agreement, was not grounds for termination of the agreement. I don't think you would have agreed at the time either. All the elements of an implied term do exist, the test is quite easily satisfied in my opinion.

The fact that Dave intended to join you for the sales does not detract from the fact that he probably would not have joined you had he knew blackmailing the supplier was not grounds for termination, nor the fact that good relationship with the supplier was necessary for your business to function.

He didn't want to make amends with the supplier instead of that he told the supplier that he had nothing to do with the situation: http://i.gyazo.com/876183ab3929dcf9c2a3e508fea00801.png and he accepted what the supplier offered him without informing me about this all.

http://i.gyazo.com/7f254e502b563db28a2f95569f8fe3f9.png
http://i.gyazo.com/3a82016a864cf9cc5255dec95b053d19.png

As I've shown in some proof above Dave's intention was clearly to join in on my sales and make some profit and to make me more profit as well. His intention was NOT to start a new business that's why I proceeded with giving him my contacts.

By making amends, I meant individually between himself and the supplier; to exonerate his name. Unless he participated in the blackmail, I don't think this is an unreasonable course of action. The Skype logs, although missing names, seem to suggest that he was made an offer, and did not solicit an offer, although I could be wrong. These logs after the fact are irrelvant however, since the contract has already be terminated, and the key issue is not what Dave did after, but whether an implied term exists based on the facts at the time of contract formation.

 

[Moes]

Thanks again for your input, i understand where you're coming from but my opinion is that even though I fucked up the relationship with my supplier which destroyed my business he isn't allowed to use him for his own because that's what he agreed on.

Also I am 100% sure that Dave would have accepted any terms at the time because he had no intention to start an ikov business whatsoever he just wanted some easy cash.

 

[Novaa]

so much drama.. why?

 

[sellinanbuyinrsgold]

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.

This is a black market site, people do things on here that break game rules, terms of service and laws. Gold selling is against the game rules and theres a huge market for it and a thread from sythe to support it. So.. My point still stands and my logic isn't flawed.

 

[sellinanbuyinrsgold]

Thanks again for your input, i understand where you're coming from but my opinion is that even though I fucked up the relationship with my supplier which destroyed my business he isn't allowed to use him for his own because that's what he agreed on.

Also I am 100% sure that Dave would have accepted any terms at the time because he had no intention to start an ikov business whatsoever he just wanted some easy cash.

Sounds to me Moes you're just being bitchy about this. Sounds like you're crying about his success because you F'ed up. If you no longer use the supplier or are no longer in the business then you're just being rude for no reason. There's no need for Dave to halt his business because of your mistake or actions. If you wanna find agreement or reasoning from others I suggest you not be spiteful first.

 

[Moes]

Sounds to me Moes you're just being bitchy about this. Sounds like you're crying about his success because you F'ed up. If you no longer use the supplier or are no longer in the business then you're just being rude for no reason. There's no need for Dave to halt his business because of your mistake or actions. If you wanna find agreement or reasoning from others I suggest you not be spiteful first.

Dave still had the option to fix the situation for us both and he chose not to and started his own business instead and the way he left me was absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Apith]

Here's what I see.

You thought that maybe with your contacts, while you were partners, that he would steal them and walk away. He didn't walk away or steal your contact(s). You threw the business away, walked away from him (it was a source of income for him after all), and he didn't take your contact(s).

However this part:

I don't know what to say. He changed his mind and went back on his word. Frowned upon? Maybe. But can you blame him now? Business is started and it requires less effort and time which he didn't have prior to the partnership. I'm not sure how this affects you negatively since, from what I'm seeing, you ruined the partnership anyway. Suddenly because you can't be a part of it, he can't have anything. Let me also add that your first argument didn't make sense and now it looks like you're picking up the pieces and seeing what you can scrape together. I'm talking about this line from you:

However it doesn't make sense to send him money while he owes me something much more valueable; my business.

 

[Corey]

Dave still had the option to fix the situation for us both

Why the hell would he want to stay in business with you? I'm pretty sure the saying goes "you got yourself into this, now get yourself out", not sit around and wait for Dave to fix it for you because you were stupid enough to try and blackmail not only your supplier, but a staff member on the server.[/runonsentence]

 

Moes, what are you trying to achieve with this thread? If the matter is already settled then you should move on.

Call your losses and rebuild in the same market or a different market. Learn to run your business better and don't let the mistake happen again. To keep arguing about this is a waste of your time, and I assume you see your time as a valuable resource.

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

Can I say, having worked with dave in the past, he wouldn't do this. I've trusted him with a lot and would happily trust him with a lot more, I know him extremely well and how he does his business.

 

[sellinanbuyinrsgold]

Dave still had the option to fix the situation for us both and he chose not to and started his own business instead and the way he left me was absolutely ridiculous.

It's not his burden to fix your mistakes. Why would he want to go back into business with someone who just fucked it up? Be real, nobody is going to give you support. Nobody. You're in the wrong, Dave isn't.

 

[Apith]

Can I say, having worked with dave in the past, he wouldn't do this.

He wouldn't do what? All he did was go back on his word because of the situation moes put him in. The only thing he went back on was continuing a business on Ikov, he isn't even using moes' contact. Read the report.

 

[Moes]

You read the report please. The number of retarded people on Sythe surprises me. Yes he is still using that contact to conduct business. The question is whether or not that contact is considered a supplier which IMO he still is because that's against our "verbal contract".

Why would he fix this situation because I fucked up? Because he doesn't have much to choose from looking at our "verbal contract". The other option for him is to stop using him for his business.

 

[Apith]

You read the report please. The number of retarded people on Sythe surprises me. Yes he is still using that contact to conduct business. The question is whether or not that contact is considered a supplier which IMO he still is because that's against our "verbal contract".

Why would he fix this situation because I fucked up? Because he doesn't have much to choose from looking at our "verbal contract". The other option for him is to stop using him for his business.

So you're calling him a liar because of this part?

His main supplier being the user Jake whom was apparently proven to have dealt with blackhat activities in the previous report where Soul Rich, myself, and Moes were claimed to be "teamed up" with blackhat users to sell gold. I promised Moes that I would never contact the user Jake, nor would I steal any of Moes' customers. I have stayed true to that, he however claims that I turned the staff member who mac banned us both against him and he blames me for the ban he received on the server.

Yet have no proof? Why would we take your word over his. Let me remind you that you threatened and attempted to blackmail the server's staff, that's disgusting. Then you blame him for the ban you received? Seriously? You both get banned, he appeals and gets unbanned. You stay banned, why? Are you innocent?

What I'm surprised about is how Social engineering results in a permanent ban on Sythe but blackmailing and threatening for, what I'm assuming, personal gain isn't.

Edit: Here's to add to the kind of character I'm perceiving you to be

http://www.sythe.org/14348567-post25.html

http://www.sythe.org/14349448-post26.html

 

[Moes]

What proof are you looking for? It was clear that he accepted to not take my supplier. When I asked him not to start a business with the same supplier it wasn't meant for just Jake. Which is obvious you can read it yourself and that's why Roary told Dave to not use him for supplying purposes. I never claimed that Dave turned turned the staff member (supplier) against me and I do not blame him for my ban I blame him for what he did after my ban.

About the blackmailing part. You have no idea what kind of person that staff member is and what he did to me.

 

[Moes]

Edit: Here's to add to the kind of character I'm perceiving you to be

http://www.sythe.org/14348567-post25.html

http://www.sythe.org/14349448-post26.html

Wow do you really think what he told me afterwards justifies that he took cash from my account without immediately notifying me? I didn't include the last part because it isn't relevant.

 

[sellinanbuyinrsgold]

You read the report please. The number of retarded people on Sythe surprises me. Yes he is still using that contact to conduct business. The question is whether or not that contact is considered a supplier which IMO he still is because that's against our "verbal contract".

Why would he fix this situation because I fucked up? Because he doesn't have much to choose from looking at our "verbal contract". The other option for him is to stop using him for his business.

Listen to yourself, you're trying to justify ignorance and stupidity with '' it's ok because my mommy will fix it for me''. Just stop. Honestly. You continue to sound more and more fucking evil by the minute. Not to mention what you did should have you banned on Sythe anyways. It doesn't matter who the fucking person is that you're blackmailing/threatening two wrongs don't make a right. If this was your excuse in a pardon you'd be instantly denied, no remorse. No validity in your actions. Your thinking is sickening. It's not Daves job to hold your hand, this was your business not his. You fucked up not him. You tried to be sketchy not him. You broke rules not him.

NONE OF THIS FUCKING ADDS UP MOES. Honestly how are you still here? Spitefulness won't win you any sympathy or even favors from staff as a plan of action against Dave regardless of what he continues to do from here on. Stop crying and move the fuck on.

 

[Apith]

Wow do you really think what he told me afterwards justifies that he took cash from my account without immediately notifying me? I didn't include the last part because it isn't relevant.

Travis was my partner when we were selling gold. He took gold off the account for personal use and forgot to tell me until the next day when he was on. Mistakes happen, in the end Dave wasn't embezzling money.

You are ignoring most of Dave's point. You give weak arguments. The 2 posts I showed looks like you trying to deceive staff by purposely leaving out Dave's explanation. I'm not sure what you want us to expect. You are either very shady or very stupid to not address most of his points in the report.