News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Havoc23

06/15/17 9:39 AM

#75297 RE: Kodi36 #75295

Exactly.. we're golden there!
icon url

DreamGreen

06/15/17 9:46 AM

#75304 RE: Kodi36 #75295

That's all the exhibits?!! Like Havoc just said we're Golden! They need to provide proof that the services were rendered. A contract means nothing. If they had any documents proving they provided the services they would have been in an exhibit as well.
icon url

Cache

06/15/17 9:56 AM

#75315 RE: Kodi36 #75295

An unsigned contract, which isn't even a binding contract, was all the defendant could come up with? No evidence of any work done? Perfect! Also notice that the "contract" is for 20,00,000 shares. LOL. I'm willing to bet this most likely means the other defendants also have nothing. I'm guessing JB&JZMY asked for proof of defendants' work for previous company prior to making a decision to sue.
icon url

shibainu12345

06/15/17 10:51 AM

#75383 RE: Kodi36 #75295

Well first off it's not signed by both parties. Second, it will be easy to prove if there were no services rendered within the scope of the contract. These services will be looked at closely by the courts to see if any fraud existed. Plus the court will draw from what any reasonable consultant will do for a company in similar circumstances. Not just based on what occurred here. Big hurdle.