hadespussercats wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:Bella Fortuna wrote:OBC did tonnes of work for Josh and Richard, for production of their videos, for nothing.
The issue is burdens of proof.
If you have a commercial photographer come to you home to take pictures of your family, and the photographer comes over, takes pictures of your family, gives you the picture, and then bills you. You then respond - "hey, Photog! F U! I never agreed to pay your anything!" - The photog sues you for the cost of the pictures, claiming an oral contract, that you called him on the phone and said you needed pictures taken of your family and would pay his going rate for them. You deny agreeing to pay him, but admit calling the photog to come over and take the pictures.
Yes, you could claim that in other circumstances people have done work for free. However, the job of the court is to be the "finder of fact" and to weigh the evidence and the testimony and decide who is more likely telling the truth and what the facts really are. In my view, a court/jury would be more likely to find that if you call a commercial photographer and ask him to come to your house to take pictures, you likely agreed to pay for them.
So, here we have Dawkins bringing the case saying that he called up an independent contractor, Timonen, and asked that Timonen create and run an online Store and operate it through Timonen's own company, which would necessarily involve research, design, development, implementation of the site, negotiating terms of credit card systems and other pay systems, logo design, marketing, creation of content, selecting product, ordering product, receiving, inventorying, sales, shipping, bookkeeping/accounting, corporate compliance, California sales tax (which is among the most complex) and other taxes, and everything else associated with the business.
It is possible that Timonen agreed to take all that on for nothing. Yes. But, on the surface, does it not at least raise your curiosity? If I were on the jury, I would want to know why. I would want to know when Timonen agreed to do that, and what exactly was said, because it seems to me to be something that someone who has to make a living can't just do - donate 2+ years worth of time running a business. Maybe he did - the context and all the facts could clear it up.
Well, according to
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/22/31283.htm "According to Timonen's own records, Dawkins and the Foundation paid Timonen a total of $278,750 in 3½ years - an amount Dawkins calls "exceedingly generous and well above-market for someone of Timonen's age and experience, particularly for someone providing the bulk of his efforts to a charitable organization."
Roughly 80,000 dollars a year hardly seems like nothing. I wish I made that much.
The point is that (a) Josh is an independent contractor, and (b) the $278,750 over 3 1/2 years was paid for services rendered to Dawkins and RDF.
RDF asserts in the lawsuit that Timonen verbally agreed to (in addition to the other services rendered for which he was already being paid by Dawkings and RDF) to (a) take on "the Store" (design, implementation, payment systems, product ordering, shipping, receiving, tax issues, corporate compliance, etc.) for no additional compensation; (b) own and operate the Store himself, through Timonen's own company called UBP, and (c) that he agreed to do that wholly "for the benefit of" RDF.
Very little in the way of facts are known beyond that, but that's what RDF has alleged in the complaint. Yes, it is certainly possible that Timonen agreed to do that, and that it was agreed because Dawkins was already exceedingly generous with Timonen. I'm just saying that on the surface, without having some confirmation that there was such an agreement, it strikes me as odd that Timonen would agree to do all that without any expectation that he would receive additional compensation. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I can't wait to see how the facts play out.
I will venture to guess that Timonen's first legal move is to file a motion to dismiss the case, and while that is pending he'll try to resolve on confidential terms.
