From your comments you are obviously not a lawyer.
I am a very experienced lawyer and litigator. These sorts of representations can become legally binding in many ways, via contract or operation of laws against misrepresentation etc.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Glad to know that you're a lawyer. In the conference held between Sun and the witnesses he repeatedly stated that he knew of no such agreements and that if anyone was liable it was Ned. I got the sense that e was "playing stupid".
Ah good I may need a good lawyer one day : )
I still have not seen any promise or agreement between parties even !
Surely even a Professional litigator would need to provide evidence of the claims made? in this case an agreement or promise as stated by multiple witnesses.
If i am being dense please persist and point directly at the promise or agreement.
Something more substantial than Ned saying 'well the plan is....'
Now I am thinking about it, even if a signed agreement between parties did surface, that would still not clear the hostile actions taken against Justin Suns Stake. He had not violated anything.
You probably can't afford me. :-)
The legal definition of a contract is far broader than a signed agreement. All that is required for a contract to form is offer, acceptance and consideration. Contracts can be formed many ways including verbally and by course of conduct as well as by a combination of many written documents.
If there are contracts that bind Steemit Inc then Justin is bound by them in his use of the ninjamined stake because Steemit Inc, not Justin Sun, owns it.
So your claim is that Ned made at least one public statement regarding his plans (Neds word), now that is a contract? That would appear to be a very hard sell depending on Judge of course.
Mind you, I must admit that just about anything is possible in the injustice system. I have seen a high court Judge proclaim that a specific piece of evidence did not exist. Luckily for us he did not stick with the case right through and we got the ruling overturned.