Blah blah blah, you glance over facts of the contract again that are not in your favor. Hyperion took money and applied it to outstanding debts prior to applying it to OS4 and both parties have agreed that they were still $250 short...so your view of things is wrong. Later, they were paid separately for the Artic port. That money did not go towards the original OS4 contract either.
First of all Itec has no outstanding debts with Hyperion and the 2003 contract surely doesnt say anything about Itec paying Aminos debts. As for $250 short, not an issue for for several reasons as you well know. 1) Its only 1% which is less then the 5% threshold that Hyperion set for bookkeeping errors so it isnt a valid issue 2) Hyperion presented a receipt that implied they had in fact paid the $250 3) Hyperion has so far shown at no time when they requested the missing $250 and in fact used other reasons for not providing the OS to KMOS (we still havent paid Olaf). In additon they then asked for $7200 for the buyback and finally $8850 for the buyback both of which AI (KMOS) paid. -Tig
There you go platform jumping again when your point is invalidated. We are not talking about the NY ITEC case here. As KMOS admitted themselves, they are not a party to the 2001 contract, nor is ITEC as they have admitted themselves. This is how you twist things to seem like you are correct. The 2001 contract was between Amino, Eyetech and Hyperion. Any payments made to Hyperion are in the name of Amino regardless of the benefactor. Again, if I pay 99% of my minimum balance, I'd still get a late fee. PAID IN FULL is all that matters. As for the $8850 and $7200, I believe those were documented somewhere as for work done on the AmigaDE and something else or possibly the Artic port. $250 is the only number you need to remember as all parties have agreed that they were short this much. No other $ figure matters other than the damages Hyperion is trying to recover.
Joined: 10-Apr-2003 Posts: 1161
From: Norrköping, Sweden
@Tigger
Quote:
As for $250 short, not an issue for for several reasons as you well know. 1) Its only 1% which is less then the 5% threshold that Hyperion set for bookkeeping errors so it isnt a valid issue 2) Hyperion presented a receipt that implied they had in fact paid the $250 3) Hyperion has so far shown at no time when they requested the missing $250 and in fact used other reasons for not providing the OS to KMOS (we still havent paid Olaf). In additon they then asked for $7200 for the buyback and finally $8850 for the buyback both of which AI (KMOS) paid.
Don't bother. What should settle any discussion regarding the payment is the simple fact that a payment was made and Hyperion accepted the money. I mean, if I give money to a car salesman (to make yet another car metaphor) and tell him it's for a car that he has for sale, it's a done deal if he accepts the payment. Wether it's the full price as written on the price tag on the car's windshield is irrelevant. If he doesn't want to sell for the money he's offered, he should not accept the payment at all. He can't take the money and decline my offer to buy at the same time. That's plain and simple theft.
The only argument Hyperion could possibly come up with to defend keeping the money would be to claim that they didn't know who they got it from or for what reason. They are not using this argument because they can't, they took the money while knowing damn well what it was for.
16 crawler(s) on-line.
134 guest(s) on-line.
0 member(s) on-line.
Lou 
