Ihatequesting - Intellectual Property Theft

He already had his own website. Why would he differentiate the existing website he already owned with the new made-to-order bespoke site he was purchasing with the words "to call my own" if all he was referring to is his ownership of a single copy.

 

From the context within the conversation and from the context in which the conversation was being had I think it was pretty clear he was buying a bespoke tailor made product and explicitly just for him according to his specs, etc.

It is at least enough that the developer should have had pause and investigated what rights he had sold before distributing the source code to someone else.

As I understand it the developer went on to scam Bogla for $2k by stealing his domain name. In this case even supposing the language had been stronger in the conversation the code still would have found its way into IHQ's hands and the present mess would still be before us. This isn't a mix up of intentions. Bogla's made-to-order code was distributed widely to other people without his permission.

 

If IHQ wanted to fix the problem it would not be overly difficult. Make a new backend which he does own the rights to and offer a free replacement to all his customers. This is certainly what I would have done in this situation. Bogla gave him 3 weeks, that is sufficient time. And learn from the mistake and make sure you have the rights to use code before you onsell it to other people in future.

But he wanted to be banned rather than deal with his mess.

 

Has IHQ contacted you about the exploit in the code he sold you?

 

It's his right to raise a dispute against anyone selling his code.

 

This is infantile. No court would deny a contract existed between Bogla and Quid. It was absolutely made out. Services and a license were exchanged for money. The two worked together for weeks on it according to Bogla's specifications and designs. If there was no meeting of the minds they would not have worked for weeks together on it.

Agreements in law are not invalidated by technicalities, especially when there is reliance by one or both parties on the representations of the other.

As I have already said the only circumstance in which the term "call my own" makes sense with respect to the context of him already owning a website and him purchasing a new completely new website is if he was purchasing a new design under an exclusive license.

 

It was not a drafted premeditated written contract otherwise yes that would apply

 

"contra proferentem" means against the draftsman. Who drafted the oral agreement?

 

As already explained statute of frauds doesn't apply because 1) there is written evidence of the contract it is not an oral contract for the purpose of the statue of frauds, 2) partial performance.

Correct, no oral agreement is ever drafted by a party, because an oral agreement is not a written contract and only a written contract can be drafted.

In this case it was a written contract, but not a drafted contract. It falls into the category of having some attributes of a written contract and some attributes of an oral contract.

Further, meeting of the minds in modern law is also called "intention to create legal relations." They definitely had this. There is no question that either of them intended anything other than to enter into a legal pay-for-performance agreement.

I understand that these facts are inconvenient for you and that you would prefer a contract didn't exist. Never the less a contract was still made out.

Look it's not my job to teach you contracts 101. You're not even a party to this dispute.

I might add that you should read what IHQ has to say about stolen intellectual property here:
Steal whatever you want, as long as you change it to your name it's yours!

And apply it to this very case.