INTRO:
Although Plaintiff conceived the original 'WantGot.com' as an online postal/ zip code based alternative to eBay(1998), well before Craig'sList (2000) and Kijijij (2005) came online, it became just another idea, until - despite his warning they might be too late - in early 2008, 2 investors encouraged him to proceed with creation of the website.
- February 06, 2008.
With timeline now crucial, acknowledged appreciation for market validity a must, and the ability to execute the concept interactive website with know-how and due diligence, Plaintiff set out to find the 'right' web developer. After assessing a number of potential companies in BC, on February 04, 2008 Plaintiff arrived at Defendant's door. After an encouraging first phone encounter with its CEO, the first February 6th, 2008, Plaintiff email, containing the 'WantGot.com' concept, concluded with:
"I'll lightly cross my fingers, hoping it's not too late..."
- February 17, 2008. Plaintiff to CEO:
"1) I expect your continued full honesty.
2) Stop me if/when you've had enough.
3) I trust you tell me if this is worth pursuing.
4) If so, I will need you to express this to add to its appeal..."
- February 19, 2008. Defendant to Plaintiff: "Hey Jan, I definitely feel this is a worthwhile project and that it has potential [...] - any proposal with this level of detail targeting investors must be done of high quality and detail so that the investor understands what they are taking a chance on. In terms of appeal, the site will need to be intuitive and attractive. The risks I see are as follows: (1) ensure we nail down the functionality required for launch initially and target it and (2) a marketing budget will be essential."
- February 25, 2008. Defendant to Plaintiff: "Hey Jan, Enclosed is a proposal [...]. This sounds like a very exciting project and I believe it could revolutionize the way that classifieds are handled online and targeted advertising is sold."
Proposal for the creation of 'TheWantGot.com' (Working title)
Timeframe: 10-12 weeks (50-60 business days), with 6 weeks being our goal.
Conclusion: " 'Defendant Co.' is committed to providing high-quality solutions with a focus on covering all the bases to ensure a well-integrated, high-performance website. This includes attractive and fast-downloading designs and easy to use functionality. We believe these skills will be an asset to this project and look forward to maintaining a strategic relationship well into the future."
"Today, our focus remains on producing exceptional results and exceeding customer expectations."
- March 4, 2008. Defendant CEO to Plaintiff: "[...] We will create a formal statement of work/contract that will reflect the proposal. [...] After launch + 90 days you will have as we discussed a website that is a mix between Kijiji and Craigslist but with the distance-based competitive advantages. [...] We are on the latest cutting edge of programming techniques. We have extensive experience with many current trends and continue to broaden our horizons each and every day."
- March 10, 2008. Defendant CEO responding to Plaintiff March 07, 2008, email: "I'm glad to see the other team was honest and didn't try to string you along with the promise of a cheaper price only to increase the cost later. I know my estimate is accurate and it's nice when "competitors" back me up (cause that doesn't happen often - the sales industry is dirty and cheap and I take pride in not doing that)."
- April 14, 2008. 'Statement of Work' = Contract = AGREEMENT
('Company' = Plaintiff; Name of Web Developer= Defendant; Signed by Parties)
"WHEREAS, The Company desires to increase the search-engine position ranking of its website relative to certain search keywords relating to its products and services."
Note: (As informed later: 'SEO was NOT applied to site)
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
l, Scope: "'Defendant' will perform the following activities:"
ll. Functionalities (Note: Follows a detailed list, a number of which were not carried out, but paid for)
lll. Payment Schedule: "The dates are identified as goal dates based on the project time-line of 8 weeks:
(Deposit -$$; Milestones 2/3/4/5/6= $$; Completion - July 11, 2008" + Final payment $$
Vl. Guarantee:"'Defendant' will fix any bugs, or items not built to project specification at no cost once the project is in production. (90) business days."
"IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties acknowledge that each has fully read and understood this Agreement, and, intending to be legally bound thereby, executed this Agreement on the date set forth above." (Signed by Parties, April 14, 2008)
PLAINTIFF NOTE:
1) Of all the developers approached, Defendant guaranteed not only full-time dedication to the project, but by far the shortest completion time. (Proposal stated: "With 6 weeks being our goal.": Statement of Work: "The dates are identified as goal dates based on the project timeline of 8 weeks.") The timeline, April 16 to the July 11, 2008, Completion Date, actually being 12 weeks!
2) Defendant also portrayed his company as the best informed, keen, capable, and up to latest tech date.
3) Other than paying for each Milestone when required to do so, the Statement of Work indicates ZERO duties to be performed by the Plaintiff/ Client.
PLAINTIFF NOTE: As early as May 4, 2008, (some 3 weeks in to the project) Plaintiff alerted CEO Defendant to having problems with the Project Manager. This individual's 'removal' however comes only some 7 weeks after the contracted 'Completion date of July11, 2008!
- September 08, 2008. Email from CEO to this Client: "Hey Jan, it is clear to me that 'X's' project management skills are not where they should be at. We have removed him from the project... Soon we will see the light and move into production." *
- October 30, 2008.
After Contracted July 11, 2008, 'Completion Date', Plaintiff calculates 90 free business days for 'fixings', pays final payment and transfers site to Host company in Victoria. Then, reluctantly takes site live to obtain user response. Some 50 Users come and go, deciding the site is confusing, ill-functioning and not user-friendly.
By Winter 2008, a number of additional classifieds have come online. With costs of $42,000 spent on an unacceptable, inferior product, the 6 month window of market opportunity has been lost. In early 2009 Plaintiff seeks to reinterpret site, using most all of the earlier $30,000 Marketing budget to have it be recreated, plus, to differentiate site from other 'likes,' has added additional items.
The guarantees of "you will have as we discussed a website that is a mix between Kijiji and Craigslist ..." etc. have now become hollow assurances of time past.
Bill Gates' slogan: "On the Internet, a little late is too late" rings deafeningly true!
By late 2009, the self-representing legal battle to seek justice ensues. After a BC Court's dismissal, based on "Lack of Jurisdiction," Professional advice suggests Plaintiff start a Blog, to show PROOF of proceedings. Plaintiff does so. That Blog version subsequently becomes a Counterclaim of defamation.
- February 15, 2011. (Defense Counsel email with offer to settle out of court)
"The contract is the source of all the rights and obligations between the parties.
The Defendant believes that he completed most if not all of his obligations under the contract. We admit there were some delays occasioned by the sudden and unexpected resignation of the project manager. Nevertheless, we don't think there were any damages caused by the foregoing."
* (Compare with above September 08, 2008: "Hey Jan, it is clear to me that 'X's' project management skills are not where they should be at. We have removed him from the project... Soon we will see the light and move into production.")
Plaintiff rejects offer.
As former Defense Counsel indicated:
"The contract is the source of all the rights and obligations between the parties."
During a number of Case Conferences, with the Case now under Case Management, Motions upon Defense Motions request Claim Dismissal, based on insufficient 'Discovery' answers supplied by this Plaintiff.
Although QUESTIONS TO ANSWERS TO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS ON WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS FOR DISCOVERY are questioned with questions requesting additional answers to new questions, by December 06, 2012, Case Management Master decides: "In the circumstances all questions are relevant Questions" and Plaintiff shall answer them!
A now plainly baffled Plaintiff questions the following:
- May 09, 2013. MOTION DATE
1) WHY IS DEFENSE ALLOWED TO PERPETUATE THEIR CLAIM IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS?
2) WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CLAIM OF CONTRACTUAL NON - COMPLIANCE?
ANSWER:
Since: "THE CONTRACT IS THE SOURCE OF ALL THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES!" (stated by the earlier Defense Counsel, as an Officer of the Court)
Surely! THIS, AND ONLY THIS SHOULD BE THE RELEVANT ISSUE!
As a Canadian Citizen, this Plaintiff is entitled to have procedures abide by their Rules of Civil Procedure - no matter what Jurisdiction - within this democratic Nation.
As such, with all pertinent matters in place, this Plaintiff should be allowed his day in Court!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete