Playback mpd3

Ghasley,
As a coda to my earlier remarks, regarding your statement: "In simple English, the parties obviously had some sort of understanding with which to proceed or EMM would never have sent product."

May I refer you to this statement in the court documents:

"As the proponent of the agreement, Tinn has not met his burden of demonstrating that sufficient facts exist upon which reasonable jurors could find clear and unequivocal proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an oral contract existed. Tinn maintains that the parties entered into a binding oral agreement in October 2005, but his own testimony shows they could not have."

Sabai, good thoughts on retirement and I completely agree with you there.

As far as the court case, lets take a step back. Again, I dont really give alot of weight to the idea that there was no agreement. Lets use some common sense here....yes or no, would EMM send products....very expensive products, to someone with whom they had absolutely NO understanding? The answer there is of course not. I will yield that the agreement could have proved to be a moving target and the negotiations likely got away from both of them, especially in light of the fact that EMM's key designer left the company during this timeframe to form Playback Designs. I am certain this is probably when the Tinn/EMM relationship became poisoned. The loss of Andreas Koch by EMM is a terrible blow for EMM to deal with and the fact that Tinn was asked to team up to distribute Playback Designs was probably too much for EMM to swallow.

At the end of the day, I still dont understand your animosity toward Mr. Tinn when you have no horse in the race. The only reason I was aware of the case at all was while doing my due dilligence prior to purchasing from Mr. Tinn, I had my attorneys (a top LA law firm) do a background. They characterized the Tinn/EMM lawsuit as "nothing more than a verbal agreement that went over a cliff".

I have purchased 3 products from Mr. Tinn since 2010 and I could not be more thrilled with my purchasing decisions. He has been kind, engaging and professional. And finally, I am certain that if there had been a problem, he would have solved the problem in short order. You have sold your EMM and moved on to your next digital (AMR?) and I still enjoy my Playback Designs.....horses for courses.

Ghasley,
I have no animosity whatsoever against Mr. Tinn. I am looking at this from the point of view of an outsider who knows none of the parties and who might be doing due diligence before buying an expensive product.

Your lawyer may have characterized the lawsuit as "nothing more than a verbal agreement that went over a cliff", but the fact is the court found there was, in fact, no verbal agreement. You stated this fact here: "Again, I dont really give alot of weight to the idea that there was no agreement."

I must say that I find it curious that you do not give "a lot of weight" to the very matter that was at the center of the lawsuit -- and that was decided in favor of EMM. Mr. Tinn's meandering around various sets of self-created facts was the one thing about this lawsuit that I found very disconcerting. He was shown in the court records to have a propensity for making up different sets of facts to suit his purposes.

The fact that you were thrilled with the service you received from Mr. Tinn speaks very well of him in your case.

Whatever. We can agree to disagree.

I stand by my opinion that there is absolutely no way that EMM would have shipped product WITHOUT an agreement. I have no problem believing that and you have to admit that to be the truth! To deny that is to state that EMM would ship product to anyone!!! Not likely.

Ghasley,
There are two things going on here. There is the legal decision that there was no verbal agreement. Then there is the non-legal situation where Mr. Tinn and Mr. Meitner had what actually turned out to be a misunderstanding -- not an understanding. Whatever transpired that enabled Mr. Meitner to ship product, it was nothing more than provisional -- a work in progress than never progressed to the stage of becoming a true agreement. Certainly, it did not constitute a mutual agreement recognized in law. There was no "meeting of minds" here, as the court recognized.