Do the Germans have the same contract laws as the US? because stating US cases means dick to me for a German court. I know nothing about law though, so whatever. I will stay out of this
They don't. Most European countries follow the civil law method which differs quite a bit from the anglosaxon way of doing things. I'm no expert in German civil law, however I am a Swiss lawyer and Swiss civil law is very similar to German civil law. Therefore I have no qualms in saying that
ikarinokami is speaking out of his ass regarding contract laws and how it play out in continental Europe.
Based on what CP and bc have written, I'd say the parties probably signed something along the lines of a "Werkvertrag" (loosley translated into contract for work and labour). One party gives the other a sum of money so that the other would create a "Werk" (creation, oeuvre: think of partronage where a person would hire an artist to paint him/her/the dog or you'd pay a contractor to build a house). Consequences for one party not holding up their end of the bargain regarding such a contract range from one or both parties stepping back from the contract and reverting the status to what it was before the contract was signed (this includes repaying any money that changed hands) as well as awarding damages for breaking the contract (such damages include lost profit from not being able to sell the finished work, damages for not being able to invest the money in another profitable way etc. etc.). Such contracts usually don't include buy out clauses (lots of continental contracts I've seen don't include those).
In Switzerland, if bc wanted to be ruthless about it, they could drag cp to court and ask for something called "Erfüllungsinteresse". This means they'd ask for monetary compensation from the hypothetical point of view that the contract was fullfilled (even though it wasn't). They'd sue for all the money and rights that they hypothetically would have been entitled to if the contract had been fulfilled as planned. This would include hypothetical profits from sale of the finished game. The presiding judge would then have to decide if bc's position is justified and he/she would award damages in accordance with the amount of fault he/she assigns to the parties (higher damages for intent of violation of a party or when there is a abuse of legal rights; reduced damages when there was only negligence etc.). The party found to be in violation of the contract and/or in delay carries burden of proof that the reason for violation and/or delay did not lie within their area of responsibility. The party suing for damages carries burden of proof for the damages they claim.
As for the injunction, in Switzerland those are awarded only if a a judge considers it plausible that:
- one party has a basis for a claim
- that this basis is endangered by the actions of the other party
- that there is a probability of harm
- and that this percieved harm will not be easily repaired/recompensed for.
With this in mind, bc actually managing to get an injunction tells me (from a Swiss legal point of view) that the judge found bc's claim to be more credible than cp's. Looking at it purely from a contractual and legal point of view (and leaving aside any claims of wrong doing or emotions) it appears to me as if cp isn't willing to fulfill the original contract they had. This to me means a contract violation and what's left is for me to wonder whether the dispute will be resolved amicably between the parties involved, whether this will go to court and if it does how much each of the investing parties will be able to claw back from each other.