arum did say he was garaunteed 22 million, i'm surprised a ******* needs a link.
Anyways that ****ed up that they are trying to sue him for that much, a contract is contract, unless we see the contract everything else is speculation.
he said 25 now you say 22, ive read 15, ...see why i asked for a link?....
so its ok for manny to file dumb lawsuits..but when he gets sued its a shake down??...dude you didnt honor a contract you signed..and its not the first time either
Please be careful about what you say about Pac in here, don't you know he reads NSB forums?
so its ok for manny to file dumb lawsuits..but when he gets sued its a shake down??...dude you didnt honor a contract you signed..and its not the first time either
what's to honor? He was promised $160k. They gave him only $40k.
They didn't honor their side of the agreement, so Pac wasn't obligated to do his.
Not sure though if Pac gave them back the $40k or IF he's obligated to give it back.
what's to honor? He was promised $160k. They gave him only $40k.
They didn't honor their side of the agreement, so Pac wasn't obligated to do his.
Not sure though if Pac gave them back the $40k or IF he's obligated to give it back.
Pac is not obligated to return it. In fact, he had the right to sue them for further damages breach of contract for not paying the full amount stipulated in the contract.
Pac is not obligated to return it. In fact, he had the right to sue them for further damages breach of contract for not paying the full amount stipulated in the contract.
Pac is not obligated to return it. In fact, he had the right to sue them for further damages breach of contract for not paying the full amount stipulated in the contract.
u guys are deciding facts without even seeing the contract. am i the only one who sees the problem with this??? if the judge thought is was so clear cut he would have dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. so obviously theres is more to it than u think...
u guys are deciding facts without even seeing the contract. am i the only one who sees the problem with this??? if the judge thought is was so clear cut he would have dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. so obviously theres is more to it than u think...
No judge would dismiss a suit without first hearing from the defendant. The claimant just recently filed the suit, and now Pac's lawyer submitted their response to that claim. We'll see in the next few days or weeks what the judge does next, either dismiss it outright or allow it to proceed.
No judge would dismiss a suit without first hearing from the defendant. The claimant just recently filed the suit, and now Pac's lawyer submitted their response to that claim. We'll see in the next few days or weeks what the judge does next, either dismiss it outright or allow it to proceed.
oh, i wasnt sure what level the pleadings were at but in theory u are right. but still with that said, its still unwise to take pac's side on this at this time. the details are in the contract. the problem is pac signs **** without knowing what the hell he's signing. thats irresponsible business...in fact there was another suit filed against him within the same week for the same purpose. its sad that his handlers throw him to the dogs like that, but pac is not a savy businessman and he's becoming a tool.
Comment