xPad developer says macZOT and Brian Ball ripped him off.

uh, nathan (#20), apparently you didn't read the terms of the agreement. garrett did *not* make $5520 upfront. the agreement was for $5520 *total*, to be paid in monthly installments, with an initial installment of $920 (a two-month up-front payment). so he only made $1380. period.

still think garrett "made out like a bandit"? i think not.

i agree with everyone that garrett got the raw end of the deal. absolutely no question about that whatsoever.... but there was a signed contract, and murray's own (unfortunate) language created a loophole for brian. even though it sucks BIG-TIME for garrett, and even though i really do empathize with him, this is *his* fault for adding the very language to a *contract* that allowed brian to do what he did.

you may not *like* what brian did, and you may feel sympathy for garrett (as i do), but there is no question that it is brian's fault.

here's a question: let's say you sign up for a new cell phone, and by some fluke, the contract says you will pay 1/10 of a penny per minute. later, the error is discovered, and the provider says to you, "um, customer, what we *really* meant to charge you was 10 *cents* per minute." BUT YOU HAVE A SIGNED CONTRACT! are you going to just start paying them 100x more than what you *signed contract* states you're required to pay, simply because the provider says to you, "oops, here's what we really meant"?

i doubt it.

that's what contracts are for, and that's what attorneys are for -- to help people draft contracts that protect them properly. garrett's heart was in the right place, but *he* created the loophole that allowed brian to back out. so whether or not you *agree* with brian's backing out, he was allowed to do so. the *signed contract* allowed him to do so!

unfair to garrett? yes! absolutely!! but allowable, under the terms of the contract? yes! absolutely!!

that's the unfortunate side of business, folks. it's not pretty. hopefully, garrett will either brush up on his law skills or hire an attorney next time. :-/

John H writes:

"Just like when a credit card issuer jacks your interest rate up to 29% because for some reason you were late paying *someone else*. It's in the contract, they can do it, but they're still shit-eating weasels."

If they're "shit-eating weasels," what does that make YOU for entering into the contract with them in the first place?

It makes you WORSE than a shit-eating weasel, because you ALSO had a choice--the choice NOT to enter into the contract in the first place!

You little boys and girls really think the world should go your way, and think you're justified in crying and whining and calling names when it doesn't, right?

"Hold on, folks. I'm not sure what is unprofessional here."

The part where Brian Bell stopped responding to inquiries was highly unprofessional.

@ m/ - i actually had a lengthy IM with Brian last night. It was pleasant enough but didn't change my opinion of his actions on this matter. I really don't know him well enough to judge him in any other way. My experience with Brian is limited to macZOT - which I have participated in when I've found a good deal, just like many of you and the apps he is associated with, which I told him even last night i had no interest in promoting by mentioning their names as I don't really care for them. Most businessmen are slimy... no surprises there :)

"Despite the sour taste left in Murray's mouth, all Bell did was honour the contract. "

Just like when a credit card issuer jacks your interest rate up to 29% because for some reason you were late paying *someone else*. It's in the contract, they can do it, but they're still shit-eating weasels.

Has anybody here had any sort of conversation with Brian? I have had the displeasure of trading emails with him. I find him to be a very slimey and rude "businessman". MacZot will be very short lived due to the fact that not only does he lose customers because of his behavior, he creates anti-customers…

#54 - Laurie - you used 'screwed' (among other words) and Garrett Murray used 'exploited'. Both are really exaggerations and quite inflammatory.

Perhaps there are other aspects of their communications which lead Mr. Murray to feel he was being hosed by Brian Ball - I don't know. But it's hard to assume this if you objectively look at the available facts. Like it or not, most contracts are binding.

I respect that you stand by your comments. That's why we really like you on TUAW. But given the respect that people have for you, I'd hope that you realize your comments have more impact than others. In this case I feel that it has done more harm than good.

"exploited a loophole in the contract"?

The contract is the contract. There are no "loopholes," only contractual terms agreed upon by both parties.

If one party screws up and agrees to terms that aren't favorable to him, too bad. He should grow a pair, quit whining, and accept responsibility for the fact that he screwed up.

You can bet your @ss that the developer would have done no different, had the tables been turned.

Welcome to the REAL world, gentlemen. It's not all warm and fuzzy. It's not about handshakes. $4000 is not chump change.

"He exploited a clause in the contract that I put in place to protect me from potential default." Um, one doesn't "exploit" a contractual term; one lives up to it.

"Exploit" and "loophole" are terms used by people who agreed to contracts which they didn't think all the way through. They are inflammatory terms designed to create an emotional response--yet business is not emotion, it's business.

Sorry that you all think the world is all feel-good and that you can get away with whatever you want on the basis of "nothing in the world should ever make me feel bad," but that's simply not how the world works.

Garrett put a non-performance clause into the contract without thinking it all the way through. Brian Ball lived up to the contract. End of story.

That Garrett didn't like it, is Garrett's fault. Not only did he sign off on that part of the contract, HE CREATED IT. He has no standing to bitch, gripe, or moan.


"Consider me too kind. I didn't want to write "buyer must pay balance," because I didn't want to make it an unfair situation." Ummmm....this just shows that Garrett is simply not a businessman, and should NOT be signing contracts that aren't reviewed by a disinterested third party who knows how contracts work and who can help avoid these pitfalls. In other words, contracts should be reviewed by his attorney before he signs them.

He didn't. Shame on him. This is a cheap lesson.

The contract SHOULD have read, "If the buyer fails to make a payment after 90 days, this contract shall be void and terminated at which point payment is due in full and all rights and license will revert back to the seller." Of course, Brian Ball would have been crazy to sign off on THAT, but he might have. It protects Garrett's financial interests--and that's all Garrett should be interested in.

But instead, Garrett was too interested in the feel-good aspect of "being a nice guy" and "not making Brian feel bad".


"What does this all mean? It means I'm extremely disappointed with the completely unprofessional behavior of Brian Ball and macZOT." Wow. Please notice that Garret ISN'T disappointed with himself. No, in this day and age where everybody who shows up gets to play on the team no matter what, Garrett doesn't show any remorse with himself for having proposed and signed such a bad contract. How could it be his fault? he's thinking. Why wasn't Brian Ball looking out for him the same way? he's thinking.

"I also feel it's important for people to know what kind of business Mr. Ball conducted with me, in case people have potential business with him in the future." Absolutely. Brian Ball negotiated like a real businessman, and followed the terms of the contract. What else do you want out of a business deal? Oh--yeah, that's right. You want someone to look out for YOU and YOUR mistakes. Well, guess what--the world doesn't work like that. The car salesman isn't looking out for you, and neither is anyone else with whom you're entering into contracts.


A reader comment to the blog says: "Brian says that xPad was never worth 5k, and he knew that when he bought it, he says he knew he could not afford to pay 500 a month for it, and that it was his intention to buy the app, pay the up front 1k payment, then bundle the app with everything on MacZot while waiting out the 90 days to default the contract." Well, gee whiz. That's how businesspeople do business. Donald Trump et al., they buy low and sell high. Sure, the guy who's selling low COULD sell high, IF he knew what Donald Trump knows. But obviously he doesn't. Does that make Donald Trump a bad guy? Is Trump "exploiting" the guy who sells low? Not at all.

When you put crazy terms into a contract, don't bitch and moan when the other guy abides by those terms. That it makes the other guy money--well, whose problem is that? The contract is the contract, and you both signed it.

Don't come back AFTERWARD and complain because you realized too late that you left money on the table.

@ umijin - where do i use the words 'exploitation' or 'screwed'? Ok, well I do say "screwed" but only when summing up Garrett's words. I stand by everything else I said here and in my follow-up post. You're certainly allowed to disagree :)

I don't have legal training, but it would seem to me that Brian would still owe any moneys that he was supposed to have paid prior to the termination of the contract (which would include the very payments whose lateness resulted in the termination). The termination of the contract would not necessarily mean that all previous obligations under that contract are suddenly excused.

Also, any moneys earned by Brian after the contract was terminated (ie from Oct 10 - Nov 25) would be have been illegally earned (as, according to the contract, all rights and license would have reverted back to the seller, Garrett).