Never give these rich assholes credit unless there is an airtight contract for payment.
There is no such thing as an airtight contract when dealing with Musk. He simply ignores it until you sue.
Same thing as Trump.
Doesn’t matter how perfect your contract is, as long as they can afford to fight the lawsuit longer than you you’re gonna lose.
You’d think people would learn to not contract with these assholes at all.
deleted by creator
“The components used to build the products are largely unique to the products, resulting in long lead times for ordering such component parts from suppliers,” and Twitter must give “written approval for Wiwynn to purchase the necessary components to manufacture the customer products…and expressly assumed liabilities for the procurement costs.”
So basically they were bespoke servers that are great for Twitter, custom designed, and definitely aren’t easy to just resell elsewhere, so because Twitter isn’t paying, the IT company is eating the loss right now
deleted by creator
It sounds like in this transaction they are purely a hardware provider, they shipped the bespoke hardware to Twitter based on twitters order, musk took over, and is now refusing to pay them because he doesn’t want whatever the hardware is after having gutted Twitter, and they haven’t been paid
deleted by creator
Yep! It’s more nuanced than the title leads on. But “Elon bad” is the train with momentum around here.
I wouldn’t describe taking over a company and then not fulfilling obligations incurred prior to the purchase as good behavior. Would you?
The article sounds to me like they were selling hardware, not providing a service.
Checking their website confirms this is what they usually offer.
Never give these rich assholes credit
unless there is an airtight contract for payment.Cash on delivery is extremely rare in the business world, especially when dealing with enterprise customers. While I have no doubt many of Twitter’s vendors have recently switched to COD, that is not the norm.
These types of relationships typically work on anywhere from 30 to 90 day terms, depending on the vendor, client, and their history.
Payment up front, in non negotiable bearer bonds.
“Your Honor, the board voted to pay this guy a salary of nearly that amount - per day. If it would please the court, fuck this guy and the board and please make them pay their bills.”
“Your honor, rather than pay his outstanding debts, this shiftless f***wit used 75 million dollars to fund a SuperPAC to bother people at their homes for the benefit of the Trump campaign.”
Different board. That was Tesla, not Twitter.
Turn off the servers
X/Twitter has its own data centers, this is for physical equipment under X’s control. They need to get a judgment (which the article indicates they’re working on) before they can do anything. Presumably after months to years of litigation they can then repossess the servers, but then X would probably at the last minute pay the bill.
legally, you can’t. It’s actually worse.
Shutting down a service that hasn’t been paid for seems as simple as getting the power turned off for not paying your electric bill. Why is it worse than not paying for services?
The company seems to be a hardware provider, not a service provider. Also, they wouldn’t be able to resell these machines anyway as they were custom made specifically for Twitter before musk bought it. Without a court order that would involve breaking and entering, and possible theft charges.
Makes sense, ty. I misinterpreted the situation.
They ship servers to customers, don’t think they have access anymore.
Repo
That’s how his Department Of Government Efficiency will save billions.
Seems aligned with Trump’s habit of shafting his sub-contractors.
Which is what Trump wants, as he also publicly admits he just doesn’t pay bills if he doesn’t feel like it.
Looking forward to all the lawsuits between the two should he lose.
Didn’t he just donate 75 mil towards fascism? But can’t pay his bills…
Paying bills is for poor people. Rich people don’t need to do that. How would they stay rich?
They should seize and sell his private jet.
You misspelled “harvest” and “organs”.
Harvest his private organs? No one wants those.
The bronzer has likely seeped in and turned all the organs a disgusting orangish-brown.
Lol, Elon is the new Trump, what a mooch. Take away message, Never do business with these types, you will never get paid.
Strip “Leon” of his US citizenship, use a court order to take the money from his account and ship his Dork MAGA ass off to Moscow or Johannesburg.
Could you imagine how upset Republicans would be if some random Mexican immigrant used $61m of resources and didn’t pay? But if it’s a rich white guy that owes that much they are fine with it.
LOL! +1!!!
off to Moscow
Only if China or America are willing to receive Pu’s ass.
Not paying bills is an ego trip for these scumbags. Maybe it’s the only way they can get an erection.
And yet the US throws poor people in prison for not being able to afford paying their debts.
This is the efficiency of the market at work.
Soooo noone here even read the article? Just see Elon and start shitting everywhere? The company suing X was dealing with Twitter before Elon. There was no purchasing contract in place when the suing company placed the $20 million dollar order they are claiming is all custom made and cant be recouped, “the social media platform had not made any firm purchase order when the server dealer went ahead with its purchases and deliveries.”
How about we read an article before we start spewing shit everywhere?
When you read the article, it also points to another article that goes further into this case.
…in 2014 it contracted with Twitter to provide “unique, custom-designed IT infrastructure products including rack solutions.”…
Seems it was already approved in 2014 for such a long-term relationship in writing. It seems that Elon just didn’t want to pay for it even though Twitter was contractual bound to pay.
Which is the whole point. If they had 1 email, 1 PO, 1 documented proof of agreement, this would never be a fuckin court case. What is more likely, that X is risking liability for the $20M + legal costs in court trying to renege $20M down to $18M? All this suing company has to do, as I stated above, is show one acknowledgment and confirmation between the two parties and its an open and close case.
There was a judge (I’m going off memory from hearing it on the radio a year or so ago) in Canada who held a farmer liable for responding to a text with a thumbs up to a contractor asking if he got the contract he sent the farmer. Farmer went into court with the defense he was acknowledging that he received the text but it wasn’t enough to convince beyond reasonable doubt there wasn’t an understanding between the two.
If Twitter and Elon were trying to weasel out of paying this company, THEY WOULD BE SUING THEM for some made up breech of contract BS like they’re doing to advertisers.
They have one, the contract signed in 2014. As is mentioned in the quote I shared.
Contracted =/= Court approved documentation
Ever heard of a verbal contract? It’s a legally binding agreement unless everyone from the contracted party was fired and you don’t have any fucking proof of the conversations with people no longer employed by the company you are suing.
So for the third time THE COMPANY SUING DOESNT HAVE THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THERE WAS A PURCHASING AGREEMENT. THATS WHY THEYRE SUING AND NOT GOING FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Like what the fuck are you even arguing for or against? That this company is going thru this expensive and lengthy court process to get judgment for the money they are owed for shits and giggles?
Here is another article that says they assumed Twitter accepted liability:
Summary judgement is not a thing separate from a lawsuit. It’s literally a standard filling made in nearly every lawsuit (even if just as a hail mary). You referenced “beyond a reasonable doubt” earlier. This is also not the standard used in (US) civil cases–it’s typically a standard consisting of the preponderance of the evidence.
I’m also not sure what you mean by “court approved documentation.” Different jurisdictions approach contract law differently, but courts don’t “approve” most contracts–parties allege there was a binding and contractual agreement, present their evidence to the court, and a mix of judge and jury determines whether under the jurisdictions laws and enforceable agreement occurred and how it can be enforced (i.e., are the obligations severable, what damages, etc.).
Again, they have a court approved document. As per the lawsuit filing:
Recognizing the value of Wiwynn’s custom-tailored solutions, on September 24, 2014, X Corp. entered into a Master Purchase Agreement with Wiwynn. For nearly eight years, X Corp. sourced and Wiwynn provided unique, custom-designed IT infrastructure products including rack solutions for X Corp.’s data centers, based on forecasts provided by X Corp. The components used to build the products are largely unique to the products, resulting in long lead times for ordering such component parts from suppliers. To ensure that products could be manufactured on the strict timeline X Corp. required, X Corp. specifically gave written approval for Wiwynn to purchase the necessary components to manufacture the custom products being made for X Corp., and expressly assumed liability for the procurement costs.
And a master purchase agreement is a legally binding contract.
There was no purchasing contract in place when the suing company placed the $20 million dollar order they are claiming is all custom made and cant be recouped, “the social media platform had not made any firm purchase order when the server dealer went ahead with its purchases and deliveries.”
You’re leaving out that the paragraph you’re summarizing starts off with “X claims that.”
One side says there was a contract. The other side says it wasn’t firmed up yet into a binding contract. Neither side has come forward with their evidence.
Also, Wiwynn is also suing for negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel, which don’t require a contract.
So read my other comment and cited quote pulled right from the fuckin court documents and reported on by MSN. Fuckint hell. It’s in every fucking article I’ve searched. The suing company isn’t going off anything but fucking assumptions.
pulled right from the fuckin court documents
The “court documents” are filings by the parties. You’re summarizing litigation documents filed by Twitter, in a motion to dismiss, which is a phase of litigation before either side comes forward with any evidence.
The court hasn’t ruled on anything, so you’re just repeating statements that one side has claimed. I’m pointing out that the other side is claiming the opposite.
The suing company isn’t going off anything but fucking assumptions.
They’re not required to come forward with evidence (and litigation procedure doesn’t even give them much of an opportunity to come forward with evidence at this stage). What they have come forward with is literally sealed by the court, so unless you’re leaking confidential court documents you don’t have any idea of what they’re claiming. Take a look at the docket.
If you’re going to be aggressive in this comment section, at least learn the very basics of the thing you’re being aggressive about. It’s clear you don’t know the basics of this type of litigation, so it might help if you show some intellectual humility, take a step back, and let the knowledgeable people actually weigh in, to be able to evaluate the publicly filed documents in an informed way. Whatever it is you’re doing instead, looks pretty bad.
Wtf “cant be recouped” means for servers?
deleted by creator
Look, I hate Musk as well, but I’m not seeing their side of the story here. That’s what courts are for.
You keep your “voice of reason” out of my indignant rage, thank you very much ;-)
