iCP2: They're throwing in the towel.


I'm not sure why Link can't charge Craig with embezzlement. The money belonged to Link's company and Craig did not complete the tasks his was assigned with it. Legally he must return the monies to Link. I'm not certain but I would believe this would be more cost effective and if the charges stick than it would be easier to proceed with a law suit.
 
I'm not sure why Link can't charge Craig with embezzlement. The money belonged to Link's company and Craig did not complete the tasks his was assigned with it. Legally he must return the monies to Link. I'm not certain but I would believe this would be more cost effective and if the charges stick than it would be easier to proceed with a law suit.
The problem is Link is the only person who has any legal claim against Craig and he doesn't seem enthusiastic about chasing him at all. And I can't say I blame him. As much as I think Craig needs to face the music for once I strongly suspect he's going to get off Scott-free once again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
embezzlement
Well if company B orders product icp2 and companyA has problems with manufacturing, it is a breach of contract. This is not automaticly 

illegal (embezzlement). Company B can initiat and pay a law suit against company A. This costs some money. If company B wins, company A has to pay for the lawyer fees. If company A can't do it, all goods of company A will be sold to pay the costs and the selling money is given back to company B. If company A has not enough stuff to sell, company B has to pay its lawyer fees itself (which can be big in an international lawsuit between different continents).

So company B could loose lots of money and time and get nothing. When the stuff of company A is sold, thats it. The owner of company is not required to sell his personal property to pay the debt of his company A.

The only chance to force the owner of company A to sell his private property, is to win the law suit AND proof that the owner of company A did illegal stuff with the money. Like buying stuff for himself. This is very hard, especially in International law. "A journey to the USA? Of course, I needed to visit the factory of one supplier to verify that they are trustworthy.". "A 3D printer? Of course for prototypes of the case." "An electric car? Yes I needed it to travel to the several companies and talk about the keymats.". The car, 3d printer etc must be sold of course if its company property. Maybe a bit money can be made from it. But the travel expenses are gone.

If the owner of company A rented a small building for building prototypes, an office etc this could be expensive to over a year. And a wage for the CEO is allowed (in Germany you are even required to pay yourself a wage by law), so if Craig has Paid himself a Wage of 3000$ for one year, it is alone 36000$. When he paid 500$ for the rent its 6000$ again. So alone for the rent and wage there are 42K of 200K dollars lost. And I am afraid this is perfectly legal :( .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand that this thread's supposed to be dedicated to wishing your investment a "Happy Afterlife" and hating this Craig character, but I'm disappointed that no one mentioned this earlier:

Why did this device have to have the same initials as the Insane Clown Posse?
 
No one here has any idea what the actual contract between Link and Craig is, implied, written or otherwise, so any armchair legal analysis is completely pointless. And I sincerely doubt anyone here is an expert on international contract law so I'd take any of that pointless analysis with a massive grain of salt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No one here has any idea what the actual contract between Link and Craig is, implied, written or otherwise, so any armchair legal analysis is completely pointless. And I sincerely doubt anyone here is an expert on international contract law so I'd take any of that pointless analysis with a massive grain of salt.
(S)he's wearing the serious face right now, guys.

I'd wager the rest of y'all are doing the same.
 
No one here has any idea what the actual contract between Link and Craig is, implied, written or otherwise, so any armchair legal analysis is completely pointless. And I sincerely doubt anyone here is an expert on international contract law so I'd take any of that pointless analysis with a massive grain of salt.
(S)he's wearing the serious face right now, guys.

I'd wager the rest of y'all are doing the same.
Any particular reason for the mockery? 
 
No one here has any idea what the actual contract between Link and Craig is, implied, written or otherwise, so any armchair legal analysis is completely pointless. And I sincerely doubt anyone here is an expert on international contract law so I'd take any of that pointless analysis with a massive grain of salt.
(S)he's wearing the serious face right now, guys.

I'd wager the rest of y'all are doing the same.
Any particular reason for the mockery? 
Outside of my own entertainment, no.

It's cool; I don't mean anything by it.

Edit: Actually, I was expecting a follow-up. Meh.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When in this thread, most of us are wearing our serious faces. Here, there isn't much to be happy about.
 
Well, a word of advice... If you can't stomach the subject matter, it would probably be wise not to comment on it. :3 ... or more correctly, to pass judgement on any of the people who have been affected by this, and who are taking it seriously.

=~. O =
 
Well, a word of advice... If you can't stomach the subject matter, it would probably be wise not to comment on it. :3 ... or more correctly, to pass judgement on any of the people who have been affected by this, and who are taking it seriously.


=~. O =
*patiently waits for example of me passing judgement*

Also, that's some strong language at the beginning of the post. "...can't stomach..." I said "not wallow," not "can't deal with" or any of the sort.
 
DatNOBoi, on Yesterday, 11:46 PM, said:

ramboky, on Yesterday, 11:43 PM, said:


No one here has any idea what the actual contract between Link and Craig is, implied, written or otherwise, so any armchair legal analysis is completely pointless. And I sincerely doubt anyone here is an expert on international contract law so I'd take any of that pointless analysis with a massive grain of salt.
(S)he's wearing the serious face right now, guys.


I'd wager the rest of y'all are doing the same.
Any particular reason for the mockery?


=~. O =
 
Implying one or any of us should be 'less serious' is a judgement call, and seing as you haven't bothered to inform yourself completely as to the subject matter of said seriousness, your 'opinion' doesn't carry much weight.

=~. O =
 
Implying one or any of us should be 'less serious' is a judgement call, and seing as you haven't bothered to inform yourself completely as to the subject matter of said seriousness, your 'opinion' doesn't carry much weight.


=~. O =
You think I don't know that what I say on the issue doesn't matter? Even if I knew ever single little nuance of the situation, my opinion wouldn't carry more or less weight. What I say doesn't mean anything not because I'm new or because I don't know, but because it doesn't matter nor would it change anything.

Not once did I say anyone should be 'less serious' about it, so keep the words out of my mouth. The "serious face" remark wasn't to make fun of the person. If I was actively seeking out to make someone either a point of attack, you'd know it; any attack I do on someone is straightforward. I like to skip the BS and I tend to coat things in spice, not sugar.

But I'm not attacking anyone. I don't say what I say to offend anyone; it's on them if someone feels offended.
 
Yes, you are correct. I took offense when all you were trying to do was bring some levity to the discussion. How silly of me. I should have kept my mouth shut.


=~. O =
Not sure if it's just me, but that's positively oozing of sarcasm.

You know what? I'm just gonna opt out of any further discussion of this dude. This Craig shit's petty.
 
Back
Top