Vos has not contacted or bothered clients during this period in any way
Vos claims 51.232,= for immediate termination by CW
Vos claims compensation for clients acquired and turnover realized:
After termination E. Vos will be paid 3% on sales for customers on his customer list for a period of 5 years
or alternatively 125.023,00 goodwill based on international trade laws.
Altogether around 200k to solve this case at once and probably more based on the 3% agreement.
p.8.: CW wants Vos to refrain from business for 5 years
p.4.: CW claims that 42.749 for unpayed commissions is too high and states that: it is up to Vos to provide proof., which he does
In july 2012 court will decide that the full amount of 42.749 has to be granted (see p.4. of the verdict). It is a clear example from the pattern that repeats itself through the whole process: link the situation at CW to events in the world if that suits them, makes an untrue statement or doubts Vos' statements, without any evidence and leaves it to Vos to provide proof.
Vos explains why cooperation was terminated by CW
Vos shows how he was treated by newly hired Simon Huang in june 2009: was letzte Wochen passiert ist ist vollig unakkzeptabel, Ich denk auch das Simon nicht ehrlich ist und Ihnen nicht alles erzahlt.
From p.19 a discussion about the client list (needed for the 5 year 3% agreement)
So CW business walks along with economy if it goes down, but if it goes up Cw just states that business has not recovered without any evidence.
It is the pattern through the whole process: CW makes (qualitative) links to other events if it suits them, make untrue statements, provides hardly any evidence and leave it to Vos to prove the contrary.
In february 2012 Vos will show that turnover from CW has increased from 1.5M in 2009 to 4.0M in 2010 proving the statement from CW that business had not recovered was a sheer lie.
- for a final verdict a translation of the contract in dutch will be needed
- court session to be held on 24 january 2012, later by CW posponed to 8 march 2012
Sales in 2009 & 2010
p.4.: Vos is not kept to a (non-existing) non-competion clause
p.4.: CW needs to pay Vos 38.424,= for termination by CW
p.4.: CW needs to pay Vos 7.644,04 to Vos for expenses
p.4.: CW needs to pay Vos 3% commision during 5 years for clients listed
p.4.: CW needs to provide all sales details from 21-jul-2009 til 20-jul-2014
p.4.: CW needs to pay Vos 3.450 for incassocost
p.5.: CW needs to pay Vos 242,93 & 2.400,= for attorny compensation
Altogether: the verdict from court leaves nothing to the imagination, CW lost, needs to stick to the contract and needs to compensate Vos for his efforts and business generated.
high-court sets the date to submit the papers for appeal to february 19,2013
CW hires a new lawyer and asks to pospone the session to april 4, 2013
Cw asks to pospone again to march 27, 2013
CW asks to pospone for the 3rd (!) time to may 13
But a new and from now on returning statement from CW is that Chinese companies do not keep their administration..?!@#?
For example p.3.@11: orderforms, invoices and receipts are shortly kept and then we thrown away everything.
and: in china there are no yearly financial statements or adminstrations to be kept
Also p.11.@42 in half a page text: chinese companies do not keep their adminstration, ... after receipt of the payment they destroy all documents (worden documenten vernietigd), ... companies only keep track of totals
Note:
Keeping an administration is obligatory, also in China...
Keeping it for more than a year is also obligatory
Strangely when is was suitable for their case CW could suddenly come up with a lot of payment receipts almost 10 years old and that was no incident since they could also come up with a payment from Bosch in 2010
So: they throw everything away but coincidentally kept the documents that are 10 or 3 years old and can help their case......?
During the process CW will persist in this lie that they do not have to keep any administration.
The reason for this is not so much that they do not want to show Vos these details but merely that the administration in China is a shadow-administration not containing the real figures. On the page: Info for authorities, which will be finished on a later date, it is explained why they have this shadow administration in China, how they operate and what the purpose is. Of course backed up by proof.
Claims are focussed on reducing the verdict but and limit the client list of Vos,
but clearly states that CW has financial obligations towards Vos.
Vos states that destruction of the adminstration is only introduced by the appeal from the new attorny and also adds additonal evidence that admininstrative data from the past is kept by CW, see production 26
Vos proves that CW is lying about the sales data in 2009 and 2010, p.11. and productions.
- repeating that all data provided by Vos is not correct
- not backed up by any evidence
- again statements about economy on p.6. and p.9.
and a very interesting statement on page 8 @20: CW has no intention to escape from the 3% agreement
and on page 10: CW never denied that she is held to pay Vos but wishes court to determine that amount .... Well court has made that the decision in november 2017 but until the day of today CW has not payed a dime, changed their name and moved the production for export to europe one door under the wings of another company.
@3 CW offers (after 5 years!) to provide more evidence if that is needed
@3 they CW also states that they have to surge their administration for evidence...(was it not destructed?)
@5 CW offers again to provide more evidence if needed
@7 CW offers to bring real live witnesses to court
Instead of making a final verdict CW is allowed to provide more evidence and hear witnesses
and will need more time to provide additional evidence......
CW is obviously delaying the case.
At that time it was not clear why they were deleying but later that year it appears they were buying time to change company names and structures to ditch the verdict.
Fang Ling claims to be establish in 2004 but that is not correct, it should be august 25, 2011, so this stepp was taken after our court case started.
Lawyer heuvelmans calls the office and indeed they have the note: ..that must have been overlooked. Court states that it is quit an insult not to appear
Vos states that CW is in Europe for tradeshow Fakuma.
Court requests their lawyer Heuvelmans to call CW so they can participate in the session by phone
Again Heuvelmans plays a nice act this time suggesting that he can not reach anybody
The session is held without the precense of CW
Just like in the first case that CW lost most claims are awarded to Vos.
CW needs to compensate Vos a large amount for the business generated
But as time passes by, it appears that CW does not react to any request.
Vos finds out about all the name changes and company chair dance.
It is clear that CW tries to only get the benefits from doing business in Europe without committing to the rules.
Moral of the story: be very careful when dealing with Taiwanese, just like pirates they do not acknowledge any law or rule, not the rules of their own mother country, which is China and not the rules of other countries.
He wrote it after Vos contacted some clients from CW to explain the deceit of CW, assuming that they would share the standpoint that their suppliers should abide local laws.
This mail from Heuvelmans clearly shows that:
A. CW deliberately pulled the tricks to make the verdict useless:
- he has found out that his verdict is useless
B. CW moved the business to other companies:
- Vos is angry as he comes to the conclusion that CW has no longer any business in Europe
- Vos can not execute his verdict in Europe
C. CW knows their position is strong since the verdict is on CW and not on First Seiko:
- What Vos need is a new verdict from a Dutch court against First Seiko
- But Vos can not summon First Seiko in a Dutch court, as Vos and First Seiko dont have an agreement
D. CW deliberately ditched the verdict:
- First Seiko has intentionally harmed the interest of Vos, by taking over the business from CW in Europe
- Under Dutch law this is considered an act of tort under specific circumstances.
- Vos has no possibilities to summon First Seiko before a dutch court
Please note that the italic text is not from Vos of his lawyer, but from the attorny of CW, which proves that the name changes from 2015 were done on purpose and with the intention to escape the verdict and disrespect european law.