4 ms·
Right, but even without contracts, if there's a document listing that the planned ownership split is 50%, and that they're both listed as cofounders... It soun
by rtpg 11y ago
Right, but even without contracts, if there's a document listing that the planned ownership split is 50%, and that they're both listed as cofounders...
It sounds like there's documentation that this was the original agreed upon split. If there's no documentation of some sort of "vesting" or "minimum effort required", I don't see the legal argument for this person to not have this split.
Contracts are documentation of agreements, but the agreements themselves are what hold legal strength. The contracts just help when there's a dispute over the facts.
- foobarqux 11y agoTo have a valid contract you need consideration: you can't get 50% for doing nothing, you have to put up something in exchange (money, skill, resources, etc). edit: (I'm not saying anything as to whether Jeremy did so).
- markbnj 11y agoIANAL but it seems plausible they could argue that the 50% was for the original concept and all the work he had done on it up to that point. Or are they really arguing that they threw all that away and started with nothing after he left? I agree with those saying that ideas don't make a company, but startup companies don't suddenly become worth a billion real dollars to GM without ideas. If what GM is buying is largely IP, and that IP is largely based on the departed co-founder's ideas, then his claims seem reasonable to me. Edit: reading further I guess they are arguing that none of his IP is in what GM is buying. So I guess that will be the real point of contention.
- foobarqux 11y agoMy point was merely that a contract isn't valid without consideration, which may exist in this case. In any event, breach of contract isn't the only claim being made.
- enraged_camel 11y agoI don't think this is true. Unless said contract specifically says that your 50% of the share is contingent upon a list of explicitly spelled out contributions, you would actually be entitled to the 50% even if you did nothing.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- chris11 11y agoI don't think one month of work should be worth 50% of the company, but it looks like he did actually do work. And he never got compensated for it.
- markbnj 11y agoYes, but what if, for example, the work that he had done prior to beginning that one month's involvement in Cruise was the majority of the IP that GM wants to buy? Would you still interpret it the same way? I have no idea whose IP is in there, at all. Just pointing out that simply stating he did "a month's work" could be quite disingenuous.
- timv 11y agoThe issue is (assuming what Jeremy says is true) that he was forced out after 1 month with no say in the matter, no agreement & no buyout of stock. So while 1 month probably shouldn't be worth 50% of the company, you also can't just decide that you don't want your co-founder to have a stake in your company any more, and push them out. At the end of that 1 month, they had both done equal work (about a month's worth) and had equal share (50% each). It sounds like (according to Jeremy's story) he still owns that because no one agreed to a formal change in ownership.
- tclmeelmo 11y agoClaim 27 of this response enumerates the (claimed) consideration.
- foobarqux 11y agoYes, I know. I was only pointing out that the issue is more complicated than having an agreement that lays out a 50/50 split.