Devinjdean
Junior Member
Charge- Larceny $5,000 to $20,000, Felony 5
Alleged property loss- Aloha Point of Sale system origionally purchased by plaintiff/victim for $18,000 in 2012
complaint- defendent allegedly mastermined the sale of said property to a 3rd party for $2,000 in 2015. Defendent and former business partner entered into a property lease agreement which was subsequently broken by means of eviction, where plaintiff claims said property should have remained with the leased physical location. Upon inventory inspection after eviction, plaintiff/victim no longer had possession of said property. Plaintiff/victim did not bring charges in civil courts within the statute of limitations.
Defendents argument- plaintiff had a seperate purchase agreement with defendent and above mentioned business partner. Defendent provides substantiated evidence of the existence of the purchase agreement stating the purchase of "kitchen equipment and smallwares crutial to dining operations." Equipment purchase contract specifies exclusions as "fixtures, furniture, ice machine, soda machine."
Defendent provides substantiated evidence of payments totalling $20,500 of the $25,000 origional agreement amount.
Defendent provides substantiated evidence that check written from 3rd party during the sale of said property was made to former business partner.
Defendent states a position of intermediary between 3rd party and former business partner with no financial gain from sale.
Defendent states said property is considered "kitchen equipment....related to dining room services"
Defendent argues an erroneous claim by plaintiff which should be delegated in civil courts under contract law, no tort commited, argues protection under colorado's version of ELR and covered by contract.
Facts-
property not listed in lease agreement, property not specified in seperate equipment purchase agreement as either included or excluded,
both plaintiff and defendent "infere" to inclusion or exclusion of property in contract,
Plaintiff did not origionally produce or make known the existence of seperate purchase agreement,
Verefied funding exchange to former business partner not defendent,
Former business partner is not implicated or indicted,
This one is tough for me to wrap my head around. I would make an argument for the defense on the grounds that if the equipment was sold for $2,000 then the fair market value was $2,000 at the time of the sale which negates the Felony 5 charge requiring $5,000 to $20,000. I would also make the argument for the defense that there may be a possible protection in colorado econ loss rule if you could show that there is reasonable beluef that the property falls under the seperate contracts statements of "essential to dining operations" but that is all a matter of opinion as is this whole thing which is why I am having a hard time with the prosecution on this one. Additionally the sale of the property occured a few months before the eviction and the plaintiff received most of the payment along with the return of his equipment.
But i would want to know where the money ended up after the business partner received it. I would not have taken this case from the PD either since the origional discovery only included statements by some of the partys and a proof of origional property purchase and that the payment was made to a different person than the pd was investigating. Im sure more details will come up but this seems like a super risky endeavor for the prosecution that could end up with malicious prosecution allegations getting plastered on the news headlines in that smaller town.
Looking for opinions, I dont fall 100% either way. Why did the plaintiff not come forward with the purchase contract? What role did the defendent actually play in this? I dont know.
Alleged property loss- Aloha Point of Sale system origionally purchased by plaintiff/victim for $18,000 in 2012
complaint- defendent allegedly mastermined the sale of said property to a 3rd party for $2,000 in 2015. Defendent and former business partner entered into a property lease agreement which was subsequently broken by means of eviction, where plaintiff claims said property should have remained with the leased physical location. Upon inventory inspection after eviction, plaintiff/victim no longer had possession of said property. Plaintiff/victim did not bring charges in civil courts within the statute of limitations.
Defendents argument- plaintiff had a seperate purchase agreement with defendent and above mentioned business partner. Defendent provides substantiated evidence of the existence of the purchase agreement stating the purchase of "kitchen equipment and smallwares crutial to dining operations." Equipment purchase contract specifies exclusions as "fixtures, furniture, ice machine, soda machine."
Defendent provides substantiated evidence of payments totalling $20,500 of the $25,000 origional agreement amount.
Defendent provides substantiated evidence that check written from 3rd party during the sale of said property was made to former business partner.
Defendent states a position of intermediary between 3rd party and former business partner with no financial gain from sale.
Defendent states said property is considered "kitchen equipment....related to dining room services"
Defendent argues an erroneous claim by plaintiff which should be delegated in civil courts under contract law, no tort commited, argues protection under colorado's version of ELR and covered by contract.
Facts-
property not listed in lease agreement, property not specified in seperate equipment purchase agreement as either included or excluded,
both plaintiff and defendent "infere" to inclusion or exclusion of property in contract,
Plaintiff did not origionally produce or make known the existence of seperate purchase agreement,
Verefied funding exchange to former business partner not defendent,
Former business partner is not implicated or indicted,
This one is tough for me to wrap my head around. I would make an argument for the defense on the grounds that if the equipment was sold for $2,000 then the fair market value was $2,000 at the time of the sale which negates the Felony 5 charge requiring $5,000 to $20,000. I would also make the argument for the defense that there may be a possible protection in colorado econ loss rule if you could show that there is reasonable beluef that the property falls under the seperate contracts statements of "essential to dining operations" but that is all a matter of opinion as is this whole thing which is why I am having a hard time with the prosecution on this one. Additionally the sale of the property occured a few months before the eviction and the plaintiff received most of the payment along with the return of his equipment.
But i would want to know where the money ended up after the business partner received it. I would not have taken this case from the PD either since the origional discovery only included statements by some of the partys and a proof of origional property purchase and that the payment was made to a different person than the pd was investigating. Im sure more details will come up but this seems like a super risky endeavor for the prosecution that could end up with malicious prosecution allegations getting plastered on the news headlines in that smaller town.
Looking for opinions, I dont fall 100% either way. Why did the plaintiff not come forward with the purchase contract? What role did the defendent actually play in this? I dont know.
