3 ms·

Even "outright fraud" is pushing it. Smashmallow asked Tanis if they could automate production, Tanis said yes and delivered a sample that was partly automated

Even "outright fraud" is pushing it. Smashmallow asked Tanis if they could automate production, Tanis said yes and delivered a sample that was partly automated as a proof of concept. Was it really "fraud" that it didn't come off a fully formed factory line?

throwup238 3y ago
> Was it really "fraud" that it didn't come off a fully formed factory line? When your business is selling fully formed factory lines? Yes!
- resolutebat 3y ago
  But the agreement was to develop a brand-new, custom factory line just for Smashmallow: it was clear to both sides that the necessary tooling didn't actually exist yet.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    > it was clear to both sides that the necessary tooling didn't actually exist yet. Well yeah, that's why Smashmallow hired Tanis: to build the tooling. Then Tanis sent them faked samples, making it "clear" to Smashmallow that the tooling did exist. Which was fraud, because it didn't actually exist and Tanis knew it. That's why the jury awarded Smashmallow $20 million and Tanis settled rather than bother appealing it.
    - resolutebat 3y ago
      You've got the timeline wrong: the article makes it clear that the samples were sent before Smashmallow signed the deal. > Hoj went to the Netherlands to see the Tanis facilities. The company even mailed samples of marshmallows it had produced to Smashmallow's specs. [...] Sebastiani agreed to buy a brand-new system from Tanis for $3 million. Tanis was sued and lost for not upholding their end of the bargain: a marshmallow production line that actually worked.
      - throwup238 3y ago
        > the samples were sent before Smashmallow signed the deal. Yes. Samples that Tanis claimed were made by automatic machinery which is why Smashmallow signed the deal. That's what made it fraud. That's exactly the timeline I'm talking about. I really don't understand what you're arguing...

throwup238 3y ago

> Was it really "fraud" that it didn't come off a fully formed factory line? When your business is selling fully formed factory lines? Yes!

resolutebat 3y ago
But the agreement was to develop a brand-new, custom factory line just for Smashmallow: it was clear to both sides that the necessary tooling didn't actually exist yet.
- throwup238 3y ago
  > it was clear to both sides that the necessary tooling didn't actually exist yet. Well yeah, that's why Smashmallow hired Tanis: to build the tooling. Then Tanis sent them faked samples, making it "clear" to Smashmallow that the tooling did exist. Which was fraud, because it didn't actually exist and Tanis knew it. That's why the jury awarded Smashmallow $20 million and Tanis settled rather than bother appealing it.
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    You've got the timeline wrong: the article makes it clear that the samples were sent before Smashmallow signed the deal. > Hoj went to the Netherlands to see the Tanis facilities. The company even mailed samples of marshmallows it had produced to Smashmallow's specs. [...] Sebastiani agreed to buy a brand-new system from Tanis for $3 million. Tanis was sued and lost for not upholding their end of the bargain: a marshmallow production line that actually worked.
    - throwup238 3y ago
      > the samples were sent before Smashmallow signed the deal. Yes. Samples that Tanis claimed were made by automatic machinery which is why Smashmallow signed the deal. That's what made it fraud. That's exactly the timeline I'm talking about. I really don't understand what you're arguing...