вторник, 17 мая 2016 г.


1. Defendant developed Plaintiff's website illegally for 3 years

On November 30, 2012 Defendant sent an email informing Plaintiff that [redacted] development would cease because of the illegality of
developing adult oriented websites in Defendant's country. Defendant told Plaintiff that the law had been in effect since 2009[1].
 The timing of the news couldn't have been worse since Plaintiff had waited over a year for a single important feature (the 'tipping feature')
 that wasn't yet launched[2] and [redacted] was in rapid decline, in part due to a lack of such features.

Plaintiff scrambled to find a new development company to take over [redacted] development[3].
 Defendant's short notice meant that no newly hired development company would be able to quickly fix critical problems on [redacted]
 arising from Defendant's launch of the tipping feature in mid December 2012.

Defendant had a fiduciary duty to disclose its legal ability to work on Plaintiff's website.
 The omission of Defendant's legal standing with respect to Plaintiff's website suggests
 Defendant did not have Plaintiff's best interest in mind and entered into an agreement with Plaintiff in bad faith.
 Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, [redacted] had been at risk of losing all developmental support from
Defendant at any moment over the course of 3 years which would have left Plaintiff's business and livelihood in ruin.

Having to move development duties to a new company in haste increased Plaintiff's costs, stalled new site feature development,
 and allowed new critical bugs to persist for months at a vulnerable stage in [redacted]'s chequered history[4].

Комментариев нет:

Отправить комментарий