I also agree refusing refund not only looks bad for COCO, but is likely groundless (UNLESS it was a charitable gift).

Yes, there was a period of uncertainty about COCO’s future, but they’ve clearly re-opened, so a sponsorship deal is still possible.

That doesn’t mean USFT is obligated to continue sponsorship, but it would probably be more beneficial for all sides, than pursuing litigation.

If not, it’s hard to envision a scenario where USFT doesn’t get a decision in their favor.

The issue of what was agreed to will be decided by the court – I’m not passing judgment on either side (other than the lack of a contract).

But like many, I am curious, as to what the terms of the original deal actually were and what the final outcome will be.

After they asked for the money back, its my understanding that USFT told CoCo they would be happy to consider sponsoring them in a new location if or when they ever found one. After Dirk apparently mishandled and upset his biggest sponsor, they decided they werent interested in sponsoring him anywhere in any building.

Your question “how do any of us know what was agreed”, it really isnt up to you to know or pass judgement. If a sponsor decides to pull out because theyve lost faith and have doubt they will ever reopen, then the sponsor pulls out. CoCo still hadnt provided any consideration for the funds and would naturally be expected to return the money as if it had never been given in the first place.

You’re faulting USFT for pulling out, when USFT was the one who came forward to bail them out in the first place, and I bet this has been the problem for them from the beginning. Instead of appreciating them for what they gave, they get vilified in the media (and CoCo still has their money). Thats not how you treat a sponsor who cared enough to come forward and try to save you, and its not a good way to convince other would-be sponsors to support you in the future.

Dirk shot himself in the foot on this one.

But COCO didn’t close – they re-located (they might have been temporarily closed during the move). But a sponsorship deal was still pursue-able at the new location.

Because there is no contract, how do any of us know what was agreed to at the time of money changing hands?

Was the condition of location-selection agreed to in the beginning, or did that condition emerge later?

The exception to right of refund (in my view), is in the case of a charitable gift, and no contract is necessary.

Ive known Jerry Hunter for six years and I can tell you he has always done every single thing he has ever told me he was going to do. He’s a man of his word and isn’t wht your saying.

Just look at his businesses. He didnt make his money by cheating people. He made his money by developing awesome products and selling them to the public for a fair price. He was exactly like the startups he tried to help. He started his business in his house, he didn’t have any investers because investers didnt believe in his product, and he did well in spite of them.

If I gave money to someone to help them get into a new building, and they shut the doors and were still closed after 2 months, I would have asked for my money back too.

With or without a contract, when you give someone money for something (sponsership) and they close, you have the right to ask for your money back. If you give someone money to mow your lawn and they don’t do it, you have the right to ask for your money back. This is no different.

STEVE’S NOTE: I’ve looked for other comments by you, can’t find it. If you want to re-post it, let me know and I’ll make sure it doesn’t get lost. We have had a very heavy flow of spam this week.

He goes by many names but most are a variation on:
Jerry Hunter
Jerry Thomas Hunter
Jerry T. Hunter
J. Thomas Hunter