@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Tigger I think he was referring to Bills declaration under oath in front of a court, where he said they were insolvent. In this .pdf-document he (BillMac) is contradicting himself, I'd say - and only one can be correct - either his sworn statement that they were insolvent or the PDF, where he states the contrary - he can't have it both ways......

Actually Bill's account of the 2003 Itec deal and assignments to ITEC of the 2001 contract is what I was pointing to.

John G. has a diffent story with no assignments of the 2001 contract.

Both Hyperion and Amiga(D) agree that the 2003 contact was an assignment from Hyperion to ITEC of the 2001 contract with ITEC submitting to the 2001 Agreement terms. ITEC say no.Hyperion say there was no Eyetech and Amiga(W) written consent.Amiga(D) say there was consent from both. ITEC says there was no consent becuse the 2003 Contracts was not assignment of the 2001 agreement but a seperate deal.

What a tangled web.

A "common core" unable to agree on the truth...............

Last edited by Spectre660 on 26-Nov-2007 at 10:43 AM.

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@whose

Quote:

There is no juristic person formed by oral agreement or a simple tally on a sheet of paper. A juristic person needs to be formally registered, formally assured by a legal contract and formally entitled to sign contracts in the name of all other parties.

However, you can have contracts where one *party* consists of multiple *persons*.

And if you really think that the "Personenmehrheit" is not a "non juristical construct", you might want to explain how a non-juristical construct ends up all over contracts and court cases....

@whose

Quote:

whose wrote: Well, the problem here is the lack of knowlegde regarding the term "juristic person" of some of the participants in this discussion (and of the persons involved in Amiga Inc.). There is no juristic person formed by oral agreement or a simple tally on a sheet of paper. A juristic person needs to be formally registered, formally assured by a legal contract and formally entitled to sign contracts in the name of all other parties.

You seem to be implying that all members of a party in a contract must form a formal legal entity to become such a party. I assure you that is not true in the US, though it is often a good idea.

Quote:

And even if we assume that Hyperion signed the 2003 contract illegally (I doubt seriously they did, btw.), the term "AmigaOne partners" still assosiate the two parties Hyperion and Eyetech Ltd., nothing else. No juristic person. The "Personenmehrheit" brought in by umisef is a non juristical construct, its an economical construct, hence no juristic person, hence not entitled to rule about the other party´s property, hence not to be held liable by law as "one party".

I'm not the one who thinks what Hyperion did in 2003 is illegal, I think it perfectly legal since AI said it was ok. My comment on the situation is that IF anyone did something illegal (or more correctly in violation of the 2001 contract) it has to be Hyperion because they are the only company that signed both contracts.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger Quote: Tigger wrote: @Spectre660 Do you not have a point to make for what you said?? You said McEwen in #35 is in conflict with Johns comments. -Tig Try PDF 35 page 5. lines 1-8

Which like the other reference says that AI assigned there rights (note rights not contract) to Itec, which is basically what John is saying. When this started we believed that Itec bought the 2001 contract or it was transferred to Itec, John comes along and says thats not true at all, looking back, I dont see McEwen or Fleecy saying that Itec bought the contract, which is what you need before you make a comment that McEwens comments are in conflict with what John said.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Tigger

Quote:

Which like the other reference says that AI assigned there rights (note rights not contract) to Itec, which is basically what John is saying. When this started we believed that Itec bought the 2001 contract or it was transferred to Itec, John comes along and says thats not true at all, looking back, I dont see McEwen or Fleecy saying that Itec bought the contract, which is what you need before you make a comment that McEwens comments are in conflict with what John said.

Something occurred to my not very legal mind not too long ago. In 2001 AminoAmiga contracted with Hyperion/Eyetech for the OS and hardware, then in 2003 Hyperion contracted with Itec to "transfer the ownership of the Object Code, Source Code and intellectual property of OS 4.0". At a cursory glance, without reading the contracts, it seems like Itec bought into Hyperion's part of the 2001 contract.

Is it possible that the much-argued next phrase "in accordance with the provisions of the November 1, 2001 agreement" was put into the 2003 contract to show that Itec was not taking over Hyperion's obligations under the earlier contract?

_________________
Tony T.

People who generalize are always wrong.


1989 - 500 / 1991 - 3000 / 1997 - Genesis Flyer 1200T / 2003 - A1XE

@syrtran

Quote:

syrtran wrote: @Tigger Something occurred to my not very legal mind not too long ago. In 2001 AminoAmiga contracted with Hyperion/Eyetech for the OS and hardware, then in 2003 Hyperion contracted with Itec to "transfer the ownership of the Object Code, Source Code and intellectual property of OS 4.0". At a cursory glance, without reading the contracts, it seems like Itec bought into Hyperion's part of the 2001 contract. Is it possible that the much-argued next phrase "in accordance with the provisions of the November 1, 2001 agreement" was put into the 2003 contract to show that Itec was not taking over Hyperion's obligations under the earlier contract?

If the Judge rules that the 2003 Contract is a seperate agreement and does not Incorporate the 2001 agreement then Amiga(W)'s rights to terminate the 2001 agreement may not exist.

Edit:

WOW look at the number of this post 666 ...........

Last edited by Spectre660 on 26-Nov-2007 at 04:57 PM.

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Spectre660 Which like the other reference says that AI assigned there rights (note rights not contract) to Itec, which is basically what John is saying. When this started we believed that Itec bought the 2001 contract or it was transferred to Itec, John comes along and says thats not true at all, looking back, I dont see McEwen or Fleecy saying that Itec bought the contract, which is what you need before you make a comment that McEwens comments are in conflict with what John said. -Tig

Those rights do not exist outside of the 2001 Agreement.
either you agree to the 2001 contarct terms or you have no rights.

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: If the Judge rules that the 2003 Contract is a seperate agreement and does not Incorporate the 2001 agreement then Amiga(W)'s rights to terminate the 2001 agreement may not exist.

First of all Amiga(w) isnt who cancelled the contract, Amiga(D) fka KMOS did, and secondly, there is nothing in the 2003 contract that would suggest what you are implying. Itec merely bought the OS, nothing more, nothing less, everything else was still in place as if AI(W) had bought the OS back from Hyperion. Now what was to happen when that occurred isnt clearly defined, but nothing says the contract goes away, and if the contract goes away Hyperions cause is lost.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: Those rights do not exist outside of the 2001 Agreement. either you agree to the 2001 contarct terms or you have no rights.

I'm not sure exactly what you are implying here, if you are saying that its impossible for Itec to buy the OS without buying the contract, I'm going to strongly disagree. Itec isnt a signee of the 2001 contract, they dont have to abide by it in any way. If you are arguing that Hyperion may have violated there duties to the 2001 signees by carrying out the 2003 contract thats possible, but again not likely and over 4 years after the event and still not one of the other signees complaining about it, laches will be in effect with regard to the sale.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@all

Is Amino being dragged into Amiga(W) vs Hyperion ?

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@Spectre660

Quote:

@all Is Amino being dragged into Amiga(W) vs Hyperion ?

I thought A(W) was Amino, or is it Amino is A(W).

_________________
Peter Swallow.
A1XEG3-800 [IBM 750FX PowerPC], running OS4.1FE, using ac97 onboard sound.

"There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

@Swoop

Quote:

Swoop wrote: @Spectre660 Quote: @all Is Amino being dragged into Amiga(W) vs Hyperion ? I thought A(W) was Amino, or is it Amino is A(W).

They are.

Most of Hyperion's initial arguments were along the lines that AMIGA(W)/Amino were insolvent and no longer existed .

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card