who all saw the post of Druff's kid being hit by a man clubbing a seal? On DD

[408Mike]

I was always under the impression that if 2 people agree and willfully sign a notarized document then it is a valid contract.

Micon disagrees and says it is invalid and I would guess they will most likely meet in court

If I remember correctly, at least in CA, an agreement can be written on a NAPKIN and, if signed by both parties, be considered legally binding and upheld in a court of law. I think a witness would probably need to be present, but either way, if signed napkins are considered legal fodder, one can probably assume a notarized document is DEFINITELY legally binding.

And what's up with the sandwich? I'm getting hungry as hell over here....WITH tomatoes please....

The sandwich shop was 100% marty fwiw, anyone with real talent/knowhow would do a better job of enlarging without ending up with such a granular image, and then (even more laughably) shopping an equally granular sandwich onto the picture to help it blend in....jeez....

[LinuxGDog1666]

Well played by China, I could see what he was trying to get thru to Micon but Micon seemed to still be living in his own world. Contract is a Contract, you abide by it and do whats needed and if you break it then suffer the consequence.

What Micon can not see is the simple fact that if he wants to get sponsor he needs to stand by his word, it looks real bad for him and never trust or do business with someone who breaks their word.

Just hope you guys can sort this out NOW rather than later in the courts where the real winner is the lawyer.

[Sandwich]

I was always under the impression that if 2 people agree and willfully sign a notarized document then it is a valid contract.

Micon disagrees and says it is invalid and I would guess they will most likely meet in court

Micon's crack team of legal counsel is probably pulling out the old doctrine of rebus sic stantibus to deal with the "changed circumstances" since the contract was signed. It's what the English call "frustration of purpose" and what the Germans call Wegfall der Geschäftsgrundlage. Say that while chewing gum.

Druff, does the contract have a "choice of law" clause that specifies what state's law governs disputes?

[Dan Druff]

I was always under the impression that if 2 people agree and willfully sign a notarized document then it is a valid contract.

Micon disagrees and says it is invalid and I would guess they will most likely meet in court

Micon's crack team of legal counsel is probably pulling out the old doctrine of rebus sic stantibus to deal with the "changed circumstances" since the contract was signed. It's what the English call "frustration of purpose" and what the Germans call Wegfall der Geschäftsgrundlage. Say that while chewing gum.

Druff, does the contract have a "choice of law" clause that specifies what state's law governs disputes?

No, but pretty sure it would be Nevada here.

And you're right. I'm sure that's the lame angle they're going to try to pull (and fail).

[Deal]

If the 'change of circumstance' is that Druff is running a forum well that just would not apply as it was considered in verbal negotiations with both teams agreeing to the potential of Druff doing so. Had Micon and his crack legal team felt that was an important consideration they would have put it in the contract. When partners break up the competition status of the future entities is one of the most basic of clauses to hammer out. Micon's team fucked up. Not Druffs fault.

[bukowski72]

If the 'change of circumstance' is that Druff is running a forum well that just would not apply as it was considered in verbal negotiations with both teams agreeing to the potential of Druff doing so. Had Micon and his crack legal team felt that was an important consideration they would have put it in the contract. When partners break up the competition status of the future entities is one of the most basic of clauses to hammer out. Micon's team fucked up. Not Druffs fault.

This will never fly because Druff said in more than one blog, post, or radio appearance that he might start a forum down the line. Those count as public pronouncements. Even if Micon says he didn't hear about this that is not Druffs fault. Micon doesn't even read his own forum that he is fighting over. There are many incidences of this -- Micon duping threads and not knowing posts that people are talking about on radio. I would document those spots Druff. I would aslo document all those time you said you might start a forum.