Griever/Plaintiff's Position Statement/archive

Staddon vs. Griever: Plaintiffs' Second Request for Admission of Facts

This document will be submitted to the court and to the Defendants when it is complete. Comments may be entered on the Discussion page.

Text

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following statements. For each statement which you believe to be inaccurate, please explain how the statement should read in order to be correct, accurate, and true to the best of your knowledge.

VBZ.NET Sales

1. The Plaintiffs originally agreed to conduct sales of merchandise provided by Defendants via Plaintiffs’ web site (“Plaintiffs’ Online Store”).
2. Plaintiffs’ Online Store was initially on the world wide web at http://redhouse.com/store and later at http://vbz.net.
3. Plaintiffs’ Online Store was to remain the sole property of Plaintiffs; no agreement was made which gave ownership of said website, in part or in full, to Defendants.
4. The agreement originally made between Plaintiffs and Defendants (“Original Agreement”) was based on the “Standard Artist’s Agreement” terms which Plaintiffs had offered local musicians and other artists for selling their merchandise through Plaintiff’s web site
5. Terms of the Standard Artist’s Agreement included the following (some of these terms were implicit and not written out but were nonetheless followed):
   • Retail Agent (the Plaintiffs in this case), provided the venue for sales to take place, including displaying of merchandise on the world wide web, receiving customer orders, receiving and processing customer payments, and handling customer service issues such as returns
   • The Artist (in this case, the Defendants) provided quantities of merchandise at no cost to Retail Agent.
   • Retail Agent would list items for which there was remaining stock, i.e. in-stock items, as being for sale.
   • Retail Agent would remove listings for items where no further stock was in the possession of Retail Agent.
   • Upon each sale successfully concluded, Retail Agent credited Artist’s account with 80% of the total sale (not including shipping/handling charges).
   • Retail Agent disbursed monies to Artists at reasonable intervals for merchandise sold under this agreement.
6. The Plaintiffs agreed to a variation in these terms in that Plaintiffs agreed to list items which were not actually in stock – i.e. not actually in the possession of Plaintiffs – with the understanding that Defendants would supply any items required to fill orders within a reasonable time after such orders were received.
7. "A reasonable time" was considered by both parties to be no more than two weeks.
8. The Defendants violated these terms by failing to provide merchandise within a reasonable time.
9. The Defendants violated these terms by failing to provide merchandise at all, instead depending on the Plaintiffs to purchase all merchandise for sale.
10. The Plaintiffs in fact purchased all merchandise ever sold through said online store, with the sole exceptions of (1) the items provided by local artists under the unaltered Standard Artist’s Agreement, and (2) free samples provided by suppliers

Conclusions

1. Since no merchandise was purchased by Defendants:
   • All such merchandise currently in the possession of Defendants is property of the Plaintiff.
   • All such merchandise formerly in the possession of Defendants and which they have lost, sold via means other than the Plaintiffs’ Online Store, or given away, should be considered stolen, as Defendants did not have permission to dispense with said items via any means other than Plaintiffs’ Online Store.
2. As Defendants clearly violated the terms of any agreements under which they might have been entitled to a percentage of sales, they are not entitled to any such share.

Software Development

1. The software tools used to operate and maintain Plaintiffs’ Online Store were developed entirely by Plaintiffs.
2. Plaintiffs and Defendants discussed the possibility of further developing said software tools for commercial sale (“Software Development Project”), in which case Defendants would have received a share of sales for acting as sales agents.
3. Plaintiff Nick indicated an interest in doing the design and programming work for the Software Development Project, but stated that it would be very slow going as long as Nick had to spend most of his time running the store.
4. Nick therefore could not and did not promise any delivery date for completion of said software.
5. Said software development did not come anywhere near to completion during the time Plaintiffs and Defendants were working together.
6. Due to the incomplete state of the software development, no sales of said software were made or attempted.

Conclusions

1. As there were no sales of said software, no monies are owed to Defendants for such sales.
2. As there was no agreement that Defendants should be paid for efforts toward any such sales, no monies are owed to Defendants for any such efforts.

Benz Rental

1. The Plaintiffs agreed to rent the Benz to Defendant Norma Lynne Griever starting at the rate of $100 per week. (This much does not seem to be in dispute; see "S vs G: Defendants' Admission of Facts to Plaintiffs")
2. The Plaintiffs agreed to allow the cost of necessary maintenance (specifically, an oil change and repairs) to be deducted from the rent due
3. The Plaintiffs agreed to consider changing the rental from weekly to per-mile
4. Defendants contend:
   • this rate was for the months of November and December of 2001 only
   • the new rental basis (mileage instead of weekly) was to be negotiated just after January 1, 2002
5. Plaintiffs contend:
   • No date was set for said negotiations
   • No such negotiations ever took place
   • The rental was to continue per-week until a new agreement was reached or Defendants terminated the agreement by returning the Benz
6. In 2002-3, the Plaintiffs asked, in several different emails, for details regarding retrieving the Benz
7. Such details would have been helpful in the process of retrieving the Benz
8. Defendants never answered any of these questions

Conclusions

1. As Defendants agreed to pay $100 per week for rental on the Benz, and no subsequent agreement was reached between Defendants and Plaintiff which would have altered or superceded these terms, Defendants are liable for rental charges on the Benz during the time it was in their possession.
2. As Defendants refused to return the Benz upon request, and it was shown in court that they had no just cause for retaining it, they are additionally liable for court and legal costs incurred in the process of recovering it.
3. As Defendants did not return the Benz to Plaintiff as soon as it became non-functional, and -- by leaving it in the open without running it or subjecting it to any kind of maintenance for well over a year -- allowed it to deteriorate further to the point where major repairs were required in order to return it to working condition, they are also liable for the cost of such repairs.

Storage Rental

1. During the early months of 2002, Plaintiffs began moving items into a storage trailer located at 1242 Hull Road.
2. Said trailer was the property of Neff Rental of Athens (“Neff”).
3. Defendants were renting said trailer from Neff.
4. Defendants initially rented said trailer from Neff as part of a set of three trailers, at a total cost of approximately $300 (exact amount to be determined upon receipt of copied documents from defense lawyer) per month.
5. Defendants later discontinued renting the other two trailers from Neff, at which point Neff’s rental charge for the one Trailer became $150 per month.

(this section is unfinished)

Accounting / Debt

(this section is unfinished)