Technology

59984 readers

2767 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

820

Server dealer keeps hitting at Elon Musk for $61 million bill — Wiwynn sues X for unpaid IT infrastructure products (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/technology

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They have one, the contract signed in 2014. As is mentioned in the quote I shared.

[+] 11111one11111 -9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Contracted =/= Court approved documentation

Ever heard of a verbal contract? It's a legally binding agreement unless everyone from the contracted party was fired and you don't have any fucking proof of the conversations with people no longer employed by the company you are suing.

So for the third time THE COMPANY SUING DOESNT HAVE THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THERE WAS A PURCHASING AGREEMENT. THATS WHY THEYRE SUING AND NOT GOING FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Like what the fuck are you even arguing for or against? That this company is going thru this expensive and lengthy court process to get judgment for the money they are owed for shits and giggles?

Here is another article that says they assumed Twitter accepted liability:

The complaint also says that Wiwynn, which makes servers and storage systems for data centers and cloud providers, had amassed $120 million worth of parts to fulfill Twitter's existing orders, under the assumption that Twitter had taken liability for them.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

Summary judgement is not a thing separate from a lawsuit. It's literally a standard filling made in nearly every lawsuit (even if just as a hail mary). You referenced "beyond a reasonable doubt" earlier. This is also not the standard used in (US) civil cases--it's typically a standard consisting of the preponderance of the evidence.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "court approved documentation." Different jurisdictions approach contract law differently, but courts don't "approve" most contracts--parties allege there was a binding and contractual agreement, present their evidence to the court, and a mix of judge and jury determines whether under the jurisdictions laws and enforceable agreement occurred and how it can be enforced (i.e., are the obligations severable, what damages, etc.).

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Again, they have a court approved document. As per the lawsuit filing:

Recognizing the value of Wiwynn’s custom-tailored solutions, on September 24, 2014, X Corp. entered into a Master Purchase Agreement with Wiwynn. For nearly eight years, X Corp. sourced and Wiwynn provided unique, custom-designed IT infrastructure products including rack solutions for X Corp.’s data centers, based on forecasts provided by X Corp. The components used to build the products are largely unique to the products, resulting in long lead times for ordering such component parts from suppliers. To ensure that products could be manufactured on the strict timeline X Corp. required, X Corp. specifically gave written approval for Wiwynn to purchase the necessary components to manufacture the custom products being made for X Corp., and expressly assumed liability for the procurement costs.

And a master purchase agreement is a legally binding contract.