EXHIBIT 8

I call your attention to clause 15 of the owner-manager contract.

???? What exactly do you call our attention to Mr. Lawyer ? 

• This clause says there can be modifications,
• There were written modifications - with both parties agreeing (they answered each other)
• Clause - 15 READS.  - - TIME OF ESSENCE; ENTIRE CONTRACT; CHANGES: Time is of the essence. All understandings between the parties are incorporated in this Agreement. Its terms are intended by the parties as a final, complete and exclusive expression of their Agreement with respect to its subject matter, and may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or contemporaneous oral agreement. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be ineffective or invalid, the remaining provisions will nevertheless be given full force and effect. Neither this Agreement nor any provision in it may be extended, amended. modified, altered or changed except in writing. This Agreement and any supplement, addendum or modification, including any copy, may be signed in two or more counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same writing. Owner warrants that Owner is the owner of the Property or has the authority to execute this contract. Owner acknowledges Owner has read, understands, accepts and has received a copy of the Agreement.
• Again, EM never sent a copy signed by them. This clause - like all EM contracts - remain unsigned - to date - by all parties.
• This and all contracts executed by EM are illegal - we reserve our reasons for the courts and Department of Real Estate Commissioner.
• Perhaps you mean clause 8 ? Oops.

THIS IS A CLASSIC MR. LAWYER >>>>>>>>>>>>

Please keep in mind that my client never received any payment for its contracted services on your account. Eagle Management would have been entitled to 35% of the first month’s rent ($332.50) and $65 per month thereafter (totaling $780). However, due to the breakdown in relations caused by your excessive demands outside of the owner-manager agreement, the contract was cancelled prior to my client’s receiving any payment from you.

• Your client would have been entitled to what you write above - however - they breached our contract before it began.
• "due to the breakdown in relations caused by your excessive demands outside of the owner-manager agreement" - quite a subjective sentence.
• Your client should definitely sue us if they believe they are entitled to above. We understand how we must have hurt his feelings.
• I believe the contract ended because of EM´s negligence -etc. - and that they broke the agreement before any funds were to be received by them: 
• All agreements executed to date by your client are illegal - ( we reserve reasons - to be reported to DRE Commissioner - who will inform your client ).
• -- an obstinate refusal to pay us any funds on time - as stipulated by their contract, 
• -- an obstinate refusal to remit funds ( not negotiable ),
• -- an obstinate refusal to send guarantees that they properly verified the tenant application and,
• -- an obstinate refusal to show - the applicant´s ability to enter a financial commitment,
• -- an obstinate refusal to rectify mistakes in contracts they executed, to follow our instructions and 
• -- an obstinate refusal to answer our questions: Exact Dates, Funds, Verification, etc. etc. etc.
• this is not a game. Real Property is a very large investment with potential liabilities. EM is not careful. We are. Even being extremely careful - we had a lawsuit in the past with multi-million dollar losses  - which causes one to be more careful - what you refer to as "your excessive demands outside of the owner-manager agreement"
• By the time we finish with all the claims against your client and his agent - which we are confident to win - they will probably have problems getting a job at "in-and-out" hamburgers - taking orders - with the records they will have against them.
• -- what else is dictated by the law and not included within this list.

Agency Relationships

• I believe that we own the property - and EM acted negligently - breached fiduciary duties - and - acted as a dual agent. They favored their "approved tenants" - not us. 
• Owner acknowledges receipt of the "Disclosure Regarding Agency Relationships" (CAR. Form AD). Oops - Oh well - EM  never sent this to us. 
• I believe our proper and politely written requests ( what you call "demands" ) were logical, and so seen in over 140 emails exchanged - very properly - repeating the same information over and over and over and over - multiple times.
• Beside the multiple legal infractions - I believe that EM´s licenses are definitely subject to suspension and / or permanent revocation - due to all the above and enclosed FACTS, and the many others we have not published or stated herein to date.
• Written herein - to date February 27th 2013 - is approx. 10% of our claims.

California Business & Professions Code Section 10176 permits the suspension or revocation of a real estate license when a licensee is found guilty of "acting for more than one party in a transaction without the knowledge or consent of all parties thereto." Bus. & Prof. Code, §10176(d).

http://www.cwclaw.com/publications/articleDetail.aspx?id=658

Specifically, Section 3333 of the California Civil Code states that the measure of damages for fiduciary fraud "is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not." In one appellate decision, the court limited the defrauded principal's recover the extent of the actual financial injury and not the benefit of his bargain. Overgaard v. Johnson. (1977) 68 Cal. App. 3d 821, 823-24. On the other hand, some cases appear to measure damages based on the the plaintiff's expected "benefit of the bargain." Pepitone v. Russo (1976) 64 Cal. App. 3d 685, 689.

Return to Top