How much would it have cost to have had the most amateurly-worded WRITTEN agreement, that could have been kept someplace safer than an online email inbox, or computer-based webmail client inbox? How much would it have cost to have asked Josh for the store's books even just ONCE in the three years he was running it for a brief looking over by an accountant?Robert_S wrote:And how much would it have cost to have an accountant and/or a lawyer take an hour or two to have a look at and/or listen to the "agreements" and point out any ambiguities or common mistakes that could lead to problems down the road?
I'll bet it would have cost less than all the money that went towards Josh and Maureen's recreation and home improvements, which is now in dispute by Richard/RDFRS - and less than the money subsequently funnelled into litigation that was never really going anywhere from the start, because of how shoddily things were done in the first place...
By the sounds of things, it could have been argued that the case was so poor substantively that it should have been dropped before it was picked up in the first place. And as to RDFRS's point-of-view of making a point (essentially slamming and locking that stable door for effect, when the horse has already ambled at a leisurely pace fifty-odd miles down a country road) - as I've already stated - it's a difficult call to make as to how much responsibility for Josh's behaviour they should shoulder. He was an independent contractor, working on a site for Richard with no DIRECT legal affiliation with RDFRS. It's difficult to gauge how much responsibility Richard/RDFRS should bear for how the store's proceeds were being used by Josh and Maureen, and at what stage they should feel the need to go through the motions of litigation in a simple attempt to save face.Cormac wrote:There are many reasons one might initiate a case that one might know one probably won't be able to win. For example, from the point of view of governance of the Foundation, it might be that there was a need to demonstrate that the rights of the Foundation were pursued up to the point where it became apparent that the case should be dropped.
To be honest, I don't think Richard/RDFRS even bothered with the first step, there. Again - how much would it cost to have someone help them get their story straight, and check what supporting documents they had prior to initiating litigation? Never mind getting to "am I likely to succeed in this litigation?" - Richard/RDFRS didn't seem to get much past "what is our case to present, here, exactly?"But for me, I wouldn't initiate the case unless I had first reviewed all the evidence I had, and could conclude a reasonable chance of success existed. Then, I'd want to discover all relevant documents held by the other side, at which point, I'd do another review to see whether or not the chance of success had improved or disimproved.
In what kind of well decided case do you get to the ninth month of litigation only to find yourself going: "Oops, no has documents, no rly has case... kthxbai!" ?
And it's all so depressingly par for the course. These things weren't neglected because of financial or time constraints - but all because of the patent web of incompetence, negligence, unaccountability and unprofessionalism within RDFRS. And THAT is some bad PR right there that won't be so easily hand-waved away. RDFRS is poorly organised and badly infested with complete fucking incompetents (up to and including Richard himself) - but then, we knew that already...
But well played, Richard and RDFRS - well played...
Do I?
