At 9/22/09 01:17 PM, Coaly wrote:
The fact that he and his partner agreed that he'd get 2000 is a contract, he is legally entitled to the money his partner stole from him, and I don't doubt that a court would rule in favor of zuggz to get the money. I just don't know anything about going through that process and how much it would cost or anything like that. He's definitely 'entitled' to the money though.
He isn't, really. A verbal contract while technically is a contract it holds nothing legally. I could say to you "You mow my lawn and I'll give you $10" and then not pay you and you can't do anything besides piss on my lawn. That's the problem with the internet, it's exactly the same and unless you've got the best lawyers in the world you'll get nowhere.
Proof is everything, if you can prove beyond doubt that he agreed to pay you $2000 for xx work and then didn't pay and therefore broke the terms, sure, but without being able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt you're not going to get anywhere. Emails count for nothing unless you can prove they came from him. It sucks, it really does, but that's how it works.
I'm unsure about how it works when collecting, but as far as I'm aware even if he did sue it'd still be a civil suit and therefore he is under absolutely no obligation to pay. Here in the UK for example, if I do work for a person and then they don't pay I'm the one who has to chase them down, if the courts agree that they should pay up they're then told to show how much they can afford to pay. Even if you don't pay there are no legal repercussions other than repossession, which can be avoided by not letting debt collectors in your home. There was a case where a woman owed a legal firm something like £300 and told the courts she could only afford £1 a month, so they agreed and it's 27 years (or something like that) for her to pay back.