Great News!
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 3:45pm |
 Coolness: 339665 | what difference does it make what work i'm doing? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 3:51pm |
 Coolness: 194025 | Originally posted by DJNEOFORM...
...he wants a cut of every dollar i make (outside of the company), it's not high right to be robbing me of what i earn. You've generalized, and I'm addressing your generalization. If he does not want a cut out of any work you do other than relating to direct competition, the statement you made above is an exagerration and basically is false. If you're gonna argue your point publically, it's probably best to stick to the rigour of critical logic instead of appeal to emotions. Just a thought. Yes, it does matter who you work for in a partnership. The owners of the telco I mentioned in fact can not do any work on the side for any telco period, all legally bound. I believe even if there is no contract, there are implied laws on the issue. Saying there are already many sites such as this and that your company is more important to you is skimming the issue, no matter how valid those statements are. And now I gotta do some work work for the aforementioned telco so I'll leave you guys to your business at hand. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mtl_mtl replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 4:13pm |
 Coolness: 55500 | Originally posted by ZE`EV ...
Yes, it does matter who you work for in a partnership. The owners of the telco I mentioned in fact can not do any work on the side for any telco period, all legally bound. I believe even if there is no contract, there are implied laws on the issue. There is no "implied law" on this "issue". I am under contract with 3 major pharmaceutical companies. There is no "non-compete" law other than what you sign contractually, and even then, some states have "right to work" laws that void any non-competes you may have signed. Yes, the contracts I have signed are for both american and canadian companies. If you don't know what you are talking about, then don't post. I am sorry you signed a non-compete, but not everybody does. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mtl_mtl replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 4:14pm |
| Coolness: 55500 | the only notion of non-compete that exists outside of civil contracts would be laws that prohibit you from using knowledge of another company's inner workings, products, services, etc, and applying that knowledge to your position at the new company. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Nuclear replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 5:34pm |
 Coolness: 2603985 | Learning…
FACT: Ian and I are in a partnership FACT: A partner/partner (partnership) relationship binds us to follow a fiduciary duty. FACT: A fiduciary duty requires us not to have any conflicts of interest. FACT: A fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict. FACT: A fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where their fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty. FACT: “XXX” is putting Ian in a position where he is in a conflict of interest and a conflict of his fiduciary duty. FACT: Canada has a cutting edge body of fiduciary case law. FACT: A fiduciary will be liable to account if it is proved that the profit, benefit, or gain was acquired by one of three means: a) conflict of duty and interest b) conflict of duty and duty c) taking advantage of the fiduciary position Conflict of interest and duty: A fiduciary must not put themselves in a position where their interest and duty conflict. In other words, they must always serve the principal's interests, subjugating their own preference for those of the principal. The fiduciary's state of mind is irrelevant, that is, it does not matter whether the fiduciary had any ill-intent or dishonesty in mind. Conflict of duty and duty: A fiduciary's duty must not conflict with another fiduciary duty. Conflicts between one fiduciary duty and another fiduciary duty arise most often when a lawyer or an agent, such as a real estate agent represent more than one client, and the interests of those clients conflict. This usually occurs when a lawyer attempts to represent both the plaintiff and the defendant in the same matter, for example. The rule comes from the logical conclusion that a fiduciary cannot make the principal's interests a top priority if he has two principals and their interests are in diametrically opposed; he must balance the interests, which is not acceptable to equity. Therefore, the conflict of duty and duty rule is really an extension of the conflict of interest and duty rule. I have no problems with you doing anything but there is a problem when you are partners with two people of the same business. How would any of you like it if you opened up a clothing store, and then your partner decided he would open up a store across the street selling the same clothes. He told you he wanted to be in both businesses. You would probably freak out also, since you are partners and should be working to make your company grow. My dad actually freaked when he asked you "If my 50/50 partner in my computer business opened up a similar store across the street from our store, would you think that is ok?" and Ian replied "Yes, if he has the skills to open up a store why not". This is illegal and not moral. Another problem is that XXX (the investor of the other company), wants all rights to anything we have created in the past, but anything Ian makes for XXX we would not be able to use for our own company. The problem with this is that we are the same type of company. This creates problems while trying to make our own site grow. It also means anything I make in the future Ian can use for XXX. As a programmer there as many things you can do. By you (Ian) deciding that Online Dating is your only option you are not telling yourself the truth. Fact is that you want an easy route out of this, but the world is not easy. We could make money from our dating site to pay off our debt in less then a year, if you were willing to work on it as much as you want to work on the new site that XXX and you would be partners in. When I was offered to make a Spanish dating site for a 3rd party, I told the person who talked to me that you (Ian) had to be involved. It was clear from the beginning that when this project was done, we would be paid to make it, the person investing would have 66% and we would split the other 33% between us. This makes sense. Then there was another method of us not getting paid anything and the investor who would find all the clients would take 50% and we would split the other 50%. This makes more sense. There are other people involved but we are still working as equals for the benefit of our company. As an employee I am against the non-compete. You are a free person not bound to anything or anyone. But in a partnership this is different. We are legally bound to follow rules to protect the interest of our company. This means both you and I. As for me not having an issue with the new job before, it's because I didn't know all the details at the time. Working for someone else does not entitles you to a cut of their company. Not to mention me signing the paper isn't about you, it's about XXX getting rights to anything we made without us being able to suing him. He is trying to use us for his benefit. XXX has also said you don't have to work for him making an Online Dating company. He told you that you can work on Net Rewards and a bunch of other ideas he has. Why no do that? You will get paid and you will not be in breach of any fiduciary duties. Finally, if anything happens to [ dotmate.com ] trust me you will be in far more trouble then you could imaging. I would seek advice before doing anything like that. Sabotage and making a company fail purposely is illegal and you could be sent to jail for many years for that, plus have hundreds of thousands of dollars fined to you. I want our company to work out. You seem to be going against that with everything your doing now. This isn't about your debt. I'm in almost as much debt as you, and I don't take it upon myself to do what your trying to do to me. Thanks for reading, |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 6:10pm |
| Coolness: 339665 | "This is illegal and not moral. "
Honnestly, every time you say that, i want to punch you. There is nothing not moral about what I want to do, and there is most definitely nothing illegal about it. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 6:12pm |
| Coolness: 339665 | Also, your choice to sit with this much debt is yours, not mine. You tell me all the time that you never want to work for an employer again, fine, don't. I will. Stop putting your beliefs on me, I don't want debt anymore and i'm going to actually do something about it. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 6:12pm |
 Coolness: 201225 | [ Edited by » DJneoform on 2006-05-06 18:08:32 ]
what the fuck is this shit? editing noahs responses now? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» madforbrad replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 6:13pm |
 Coolness: 44550 | why is it people in montreal can't do real honest work ?
you guys are either creating telemarketing scams Creating pyramid scheme porn sites , or dating services that nobody will use whose sole revenue is based on fake traffic directed from above mentioned pyramid scheme sites. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 6:19pm |
| Coolness: 339665 | Originally posted by SCOTTYP...
[ Edited by » DJneoform on 2006-05-06 18:08:32 ] what the fuck is this shit? editing noahs responses now? I removed people's full names, what the hell is THAT about? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Nuclear replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 6:23pm |
| Coolness: 2603985 | If there was nothing illegal about it then we would not have this problem. You think the rules of running a business don't apply to you but they apply to everyone. Common law was created to protect companies like ours from people like XXX who want to use us for their benefits. I see a problem cause I don't want to see everything I worked for disapear because of him. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 6:24pm |
| Coolness: 339665 | Fine, then my only recourse is to terminate our partnership, since you are not giving me any options. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Hidra replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 6:28pm |
 Coolness: 88425 | /me go grab some popcorn |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mavus replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 8:01pm |
| Coolness: 35135 | I think this whole trip should be between you guys and not shared with the public. You sound like little kids. Ian, the fact that you want to go to another company and compete with your own company is outragous. If you can not see that for yourself then you need to get your head examined. If I had a partner who went out and helped someone build a business like ours I would sue the shit out of him. You guys were supposed to be friends. Are you going to tell me that you could not find another kind of work being a programmer? Give me a break. Who do you think you are kidding. Noah is in debt as well and would never stoop so low to go into competition with you and his own company. Wake up if that is possible! But by your actions and deeds obviously you just don't get it. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 8:08pm |
| Coolness: 194025 | Originally posted by REPENTTOKYO...
the only notion of non-compete that exists outside of civil contracts would be laws that prohibit you from using knowledge of another company's inner workings, products, services, etc, and applying that knowledge to your position at the new company. thanks for elaborating my point for me, this is exactly what I meant. That aside, I believe mavus made several good points. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» madforbrad replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 9:03pm |
| Coolness: 44550 | holy fuck this is hilarious
if i had to take a side , i would say Thog is in the wrong . I mean that name is clearly french and french people are fucking morons . |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» greatjob replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 9:27pm |
 Coolness: 282455 | I think I should smack you^^^ Noah, can I smack him please? LMFAO |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mtl_mtl replied on Sat May 6, 2006 @ 11:36pm |
| Coolness: 55500 | hahahaha terminating a partnership over a webboard, that's hilarious! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» El_Presidente replied on Sun May 7, 2006 @ 12:06am |
 Coolness: 299325 | i agree with gunter here |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Kuzutetsu replied on Sun May 7, 2006 @ 3:42am |
 Coolness: 133035 | dj Neoform is working for a porn company :) ?? |
Great News!
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
