3 ms·

No matter how damning the evidence is, and it really is damning, Arrington still comes off like a right idiot for not having formal contracts in place that clea

No matter how damning the evidence is, and it really is damning, Arrington still comes off like a right idiot for not having formal contracts in place that clearly outline who owns what from the beginning. Seriously, he had to resort to showing photos of fusion garage people in the techcrunch offices just to prove that they even had a business relationship. For an attorney, this is just embarassing.

imightbeatroll 16y ago
Well, there is a reason he is a pundit and not a practicing lawyer. He obviously was not very good at his job. Not having a contract with a foreign company for a project like this is gross incompetence, and if he were representing another client, would be malpractice. He also comes off as a drama queen, and quite likely, was a customer from hell. So I for one am enjoying the spectacle.
- bradleyland 16y ago
  He's a pundit, but he's also a businessman. If he hasn't got the business sense to put together a contract for a JV, then he ought to have a business manager watching after him.
  - dillydally 16y ago
    ...and a lawyer.
gregpilling 16y ago
I barely got out of highschool and I know enough to write a contract. It can be on a napkin, but for goodness sake write down the basic agreement.
- dagw 16y ago
  The problem with a contract is that it locks downs both parties. Not having a written contract gave MA the freedom to change the deal on FG if things didn't work out the way he wanted. I'm sure Mr. Arrington made a very conscious decision to not put a contract in place and was very well aware of the risks. Sometimes when you gamble, you lose.
bl4k 16y ago
Do you realize that a contract doesn't have to be written right, that contract law places as much emphasis on oral agreements and your actions? Arrington was smart in knowing that he didn't need the written contract if things went bad (exhibit a) and that a written contract would tie down his own options for the crunchpad (ie. if they signed and then FG didn't deliver, arrington could have gone to another partner without FG still owning part of the company). You can see in the evidence that Arrington spent a lot of time going back and forward to work out the merger agreement. This was seen as an almost formality from both parties, hence the reason why it was pushed back so late. ps. and that PR firm, McGrath Power, I will never ever work with them nor any company that works with them and I will advise every company I know not to work with them or to leave them. Seriously sick company, who in evidence, basically said 'oh this looks bad, but it is worth $x, so lets do it' (the amount was redacted)
- eli 16y ago
  Forget about the law... How could you possibly form a partnership to work on a project without having a document that describes exactly how the work will be divided?
dotBen 16y ago
...or, what grellas said above (excellent comment, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1696483 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1696483): "These parties had all sorts of back and forth in what was a very fluid relationship and it seems that Mr. Arrington, for his part, was pushing for maximum advantage on terms without wanting to tie himself down to a premature deal"

imightbeatroll 16y ago

Well, there is a reason he is a pundit and not a practicing lawyer. He obviously was not very good at his job. Not having a contract with a foreign company for a project like this is gross incompetence, and if he were representing another client, would be malpractice. He also comes off as a drama queen, and quite likely, was a customer from hell. So I for one am enjoying the spectacle.

bradleyland 16y ago
He's a pundit, but he's also a businessman. If he hasn't got the business sense to put together a contract for a JV, then he ought to have a business manager watching after him.
- dillydally 16y ago
  ...and a lawyer.

gregpilling 16y ago

I barely got out of highschool and I know enough to write a contract. It can be on a napkin, but for goodness sake write down the basic agreement.

dagw 16y ago
The problem with a contract is that it locks downs both parties. Not having a written contract gave MA the freedom to change the deal on FG if things didn't work out the way he wanted. I'm sure Mr. Arrington made a very conscious decision to not put a contract in place and was very well aware of the risks. Sometimes when you gamble, you lose.

bl4k 16y ago

Do you realize that a contract doesn't have to be written right, that contract law places as much emphasis on oral agreements and your actions? Arrington was smart in knowing that he didn't need the written contract if things went bad (exhibit a) and that a written contract would tie down his own options for the crunchpad (ie. if they signed and then FG didn't deliver, arrington could have gone to another partner without FG still owning part of the company). You can see in the evidence that Arrington spent a lot of time going back and forward to work out the merger agreement. This was seen as an almost formality from both parties, hence the reason why it was pushed back so late. ps. and that PR firm, McGrath Power, I will never ever work with them nor any company that works with them and I will advise every company I know not to work with them or to leave them. Seriously sick company, who in evidence, basically said 'oh this looks bad, but it is worth $x, so lets do it' (the amount was redacted)

eli 16y ago
Forget about the law... How could you possibly form a partnership to work on a project without having a document that describes exactly how the work will be divided?

dotBen 16y ago

...or, what grellas said above (excellent comment, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1696483 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1696483): "These parties had all sorts of back and forth in what was a very fluid relationship and it seems that Mr. Arrington, for his part, was pushing for maximum advantage on terms without wanting to tie himself down to a premature deal"