GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

jayeff · 05-23-2005, 01:02 AM

SoS... it is apparently sometimes successful marketing tactic for sponsors and their reps to come across as complete assholes here. But the first thing strikes me is what on earth made you deal with a content provider who does the same thing? You couldn't have handled this much worse: you pretty much hung out a notice saying mug me. And it is still in plain sight.

Coming to GFY is unlikely to damage an image which Aaron seems intent on wrecking anyway. I imagine that he has put what he knows of you together with the relatively small base sum involved, and doesn't believe you will sue him. Serve him papers with a claim for a decent 5-figure sum and you might get his attention. The way to do this is to add to your claim for a refund and legal costs, a claim for the losses you suffered because you were not able to open your pay site.

Aaron has introduced lots of red herrings and dismissed or side-stepped your concerns. But he seems unable to claim that he did deliver what was promised (and illustrated by the samples he sent). It is irrelevant that what he provided might have been useful to some customers or that some might perceive the delivered package as good value. Your "misunderstanding" about Canadian dollars is hard to believe, but that became a non-issue when he went ahead with the transaction anyway. The later licensing issues are most irrelevant of all, because they have nothing whatever to do with the non-completion of the original transaction. Similarly, he has no basis in law for with-holding a refund because you upset him or because he doesn't like what you have been saying about him here (if he thinks those remarks were untrue and have damaged him, that is a separate issue he should pursue).

If you had to depend entirely on opinions as to the attractiveness or otherwise of some of his models, you might be on shakier ground. But you mentioned content categories which by no stretch of the imagination were appropriate. I don't believe you would have any problem at all in proving your case and although it will be harder to justify any additional damages, the nice thing for you is that the onus will be on Aaron to prove that any such claim is not reasonable. That will push his costs up, with no likely benefit except to minimize what he will have to pay you.

There is never a guarantee that people will not behave irrationally, but if you demonstrated you were serious, I doubt this case would ever get to court. It is the kind of nonsense case that the courts generally don't like, so at worst it should be dealt with quickly and therefore relatively inexpensively.

05-23-2005, 01:02 AM
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	SoS... it is apparently sometimes successful marketing tactic for sponsors and their reps to come across as complete assholes here. But the first thing strikes me is what on earth made you deal with a content provider who does the same thing? You couldn't have handled this much worse: you pretty much hung out a notice saying mug me. And it is still in plain sight. Coming to GFY is unlikely to damage an image which Aaron seems intent on wrecking anyway. I imagine that he has put what he knows of you together with the relatively small base sum involved, and doesn't believe you will sue him. Serve him papers with a claim for a decent 5-figure sum and you might get his attention. The way to do this is to add to your claim for a refund and legal costs, a claim for the losses you suffered because you were not able to open your pay site. Aaron has introduced lots of red herrings and dismissed or side-stepped your concerns. But he seems unable to claim that he did deliver what was promised (and illustrated by the samples he sent). It is irrelevant that what he provided might have been useful to some customers or that some might perceive the delivered package as good value. Your "misunderstanding" about Canadian dollars is hard to believe, but that became a non-issue when he went ahead with the transaction anyway. The later licensing issues are most irrelevant of all, because they have nothing whatever to do with the non-completion of the original transaction. Similarly, he has no basis in law for with-holding a refund because you upset him or because he doesn't like what you have been saying about him here (if he thinks those remarks were untrue and have damaged him, that is a separate issue he should pursue). If you had to depend entirely on opinions as to the attractiveness or otherwise of some of his models, you might be on shakier ground. But you mentioned content categories which by no stretch of the imagination were appropriate. I don't believe you would have any problem at all in proving your case and although it will be harder to justify any additional damages, the nice thing for you is that the onus will be on Aaron to prove that any such claim is not reasonable. That will push his costs up, with no likely benefit except to minimize what he will have to pay you. There is never a guarantee that people will not behave irrationally, but if you demonstrated you were serious, I doubt this case would ever get to court. It is the kind of nonsense case that the courts generally don't like, so at worst it should be dealt with quickly and therefore relatively inexpensively.