Update regarding the CommunityBound/My Mountain Town Dispute

Well put towermonkey, the whole situation is unfortunate, for SC.... She is seeing her hard work and money she put into this site to make it successful threatened. CG may well see the flagship of Communities Bound, by far the most successful of the Bound sites, rendered irrelevant if she wins this dispute. 285Bound, that she now runs is mostly CG posting in her various incarnations..... If MMT goes down I seriously doubt all the members here will go back to 285Bound. CG loses, SC loses, and we all lose.

towermonkey wrote: I'll bet that the judge doesn't have personal knowledge of this situation either. That is irrelevant to the outcome of this case, but does say a lot of good things about the value of friendship. I really am saddened by this whole thing, first because I don't think SC bought what she thought she bought, and second, because this is the best site to come to for information and people when you want to just talk without having to tiptoe. I am, like you said frogger, just an observer from a distance. Perhaps though, this lets me see things with a bit more clarity.

My take on this is that SC made the move to a new server, maybe with a little bit of FU towards CG. CG, seeing that the new site had a different name, thought that this was a site in direct competition to the bound site. What will be decided in court, is what happened vs what is in the contract. All of the personal stuff is just so much fluff. My gut feeling on this is that the name change is the key and that will bend this in CG's favor based on my reading of section 10. That, admittedly, was never approved and did make it appear to be competition and theft rather than a simple server change. All of the other related claims and counterclaims will be decided based on how that primary finding goes.

Honestly, all this seems like such a waste. Like Homeagain said, I'm afraid that the distraction will bring both sites down and leave both parties angry and bitter. I would suggest, just this one more time, that both parties sit down and hash this out before going to court. Do it this weekend! Get it over with!

So if SC had called the site Mymountaintownbound do you think it would have made a difference?

Possibly. It is not one of the three reserved names and I don't think it would have been agreed to as it is not region specific. I'm also unclear on if it has to be agreed to, but not agreeing to things ahead of time lands you in court.

My concern has been that so much focus has been geared to what did happen, as opposed to what will happen next.

While SC's initial post in this thread suggested that CG didn't understand the contract, I've had concerns the other way, and in both directions. Even the tenor of the Flume article suggested a degree of surprise that there was no "sale" attendant to the transaction, in contrast to the earlier press release announcing the deal.

If applicable, I think the non-compete was intended to protect the trade secrets of CBound, not as a device to keep SC from getting another job elsewhere.

Whether SC currently breaches trade-secret protections by holding classes to teach the public how to use twitter, for instance, I have no idea (CG claims in her Counterclaim that it is a breach) but would comment that many resources also provide the same tutorial. You obviously can't "protect" what is "out there" to begin with.

I do think the name change was the problem but whether the switch constituted a sub-license, a transfer or an agreed-upon-in-advance continuation is moot insofar as the termination date on the contract itself, which is fast upcoming.

If we put these parties back where they used to be, one of them has $15,000 or so that she paid on the contract and Note, but she doesn't have a membership database or any advertisers, so I sort of doubt that would be satisfying to SC even though I'm personally optimistic she could rebuild within a reasonable period of time. I do have a hard time imagining a court granting her the right to continue to use CBound database information beyond the contract termination date, based upon an earlier breach by CG or otherwise -- but could very well be wrong and have seen way stranger things happen, so who knows? either way, the contract is purely for creation and management of the site, there are no ownership rights unless I somehow glanced right by them, which is also certainly possible.

Generally speaking, as I loosely understand the concept, a contract that is intact and unambiguous will be resolved on its face and, as the Answer mentioned in one of the affirmative defenses, extrinsic (or parol) evidence won't be admitted to explain its terms. SC has stated there are lots more documents at issue than the Flume has published and they may "fill in the gaps" insofar as any agreements that may have been reached after the contract was signed.

Unfortunately, it's totally legal to be a creepy person and to have low integrity so long as one adheres to one's agreements in "good faith and fair dealing" -- so the breach of a commercial contract will be what the Court is looking at -- as God is the only one who holds jurisdiction over the Morals part of the way the deal was handled. Good news: He is watching, and is pretty good at managing His venue, too.

Very well said archer. I agree totally with you.

CK.....your absolutely right.....a much higher power will judge this in the end.

towermonkey wrote: I really am saddened by this whole thing,

Seriously? :rofllol

Like you're losing sleep over it or something? lets not overstate things friends- Only 2 or 3 people should really care about this

ColoradoKathy wrote: My concern has been that so much focus has been geared to what did happen, as opposed to what will happen next.

While SC's initial post in this thread suggested that CG didn't understand the contract, I've had concerns the other way, and in both directions. Even the tenor of the Flume article suggested a degree of surprise that there was no "sale" attendant to the transaction, in contrast to the earlier press release announcing the deal.

If applicable, I think the non-compete was intended to protect the trade secrets of CBound, not as a device to keep SC from getting another job elsewhere.

Whether SC currently breaches trade-secret protections by holding classes to teach the public how to use twitter, for instance, I have no idea (CG claims in her Counterclaim that it is a breach) but would comment that many resources also provide the same tutorial. You obviously can't "protect" what is "out there" to begin with.

I do think the name change was the problem but whether the switch constituted a sub-license, a transfer or an agreed-upon-in-advance continuation is moot insofar as the termination date on the contract itself, which is fast upcoming.

If we put these parties back where they used to be, one of them has $15,000 or so that she paid on the contract and Note, but she doesn't have a membership database or any advertisers, so I sort of doubt that would be satisfying to SC even though I'm personally optimistic she could rebuild within a reasonable period of time. I do have a hard time imagining a court granting her the right to continue to use CBound database information beyond the contract termination date, based upon an earlier breach by CG or otherwise -- but could very well be wrong and have seen way stranger things happen, so who knows? either way, the contract is purely for creation and management of the site, there are no ownership rights unless I somehow glanced right by them, which is also certainly possible.

Generally speaking, as I loosely understand the concept, a contract that is intact and unambiguous will be resolved on its face and, as the Answer mentioned in one of the affirmative defenses, extrinsic (or parol) evidence won't be admitted to explain its terms. SC has stated there are lots more documents at issue than the Flume has published and they may "fill in the gaps" insofar as any agreements that may have been reached after the contract was signed.

Unfortunately, it's totally legal to be a creepy person and to have low integrity so long as one adheres to one's agreements in "good faith and fair dealing" -- so the breach of a commercial contract will be what the Court is looking at -- as God is the only one who holds jurisdiction over the Morals part of the way the deal was handled. Good news: He is watching, and is pretty good at managing His venue, too.

SC is gonna lose

No one will win...A third www site will clean it up......Malta.....just do it !!! Yeahhhh right.

Lots of good points. Frogger as usual thinks she has her hand in all of this and knows what the legal arguments are, in her opinion. Most unfortunate if she helped SC into her bad decisions.

IT is the contract. SC had the opportunity to have it reviewed before she signed. Whether she did or not I don't know. I think not as I doubt anyone would sign a crappy contract like that. And CG should have had a better defined one from the get go. Lessons to be learned for both.

What the heck now knowing that March is when this website gets whacked. Too bad SC didn't think far enough ahead about the consequences of her actions.

I choose to comment on this thread because SC and CG screwed everything up royally. Darn don't you just hate it frogger when this site says I can have an opinion just like you whether you like the opinion or not. I could say that your negative which is profound throughout this site is good reason that you shouldn't be here don't you think using your criteria?

Unfortunately SC did a fine job of screwing this all up. I was told that I would like this site and that she did good for this community. What others failed to tell me is how rank she and her husband are. Maybe too much wine???

In the long run I think SC will learn very valuable lessons from this and will move on to do some good things. I hope her leadership experience in Evergreen has taught her something. Interesting that I don't see ads from those from her leadership class. They recognize an untenable situation when they see it. I wish a fresh start for you SC whatever you do. I do believe you can change for the better. CG I have my doubts.

LOL
Same day....different shovel.