SoCal-- the court made imputed knowledge of the rates the big appealable issue by hanging most of their decision on the idea Lauffer did not know the rates until after I gave him the advice. I agree it should not be relevant (we argued that in the brief) since regardless, he knew them before he acted on the advice (bought the horse). But aside from that:
a) The August email (three months before the purchase) was a reply to my query of one member of the joint venture as to whether Lauffer and the third guy knew my rates. The return email from him, in evidence and discussed during the trial with three witnesses, states \"I have told them your commission (and other) rates, but it would \'seal the deal\' if you sent them to me by email reply, so that we have it clearly documented\". There is clear evidence Lauffer knew my rates, not just as a matter of law but fact. Both the trial and appeals court chose to characterize the email in their decisions, rather than quote it, leaving out the part where it says he was informed.
b) I responded with my rates, as both the trial and appeals courts acknowledged. By law, at that point knowledge of the rates is imputed to Lauffer, whether he knew them or not, simply by any member of the joint venture having them.
High Roller-- At the trial, Chris Young (Overbrook Farm), Ro Parra (Millenium), Rich Decker (Prestonwood Farm manager) and Eliot Walden (Prestonwood trainer, Win Star General Manager) all testified to their outfits using me to advise them and PAYING MY RATES. They also testified as to how that had worked out, and as a group, their outfits had spent high seven figures on horses I recommended, and turned a very substantial profit-- in an industry where expenses are $2 billion a year, purses $1 billion, and that\'s before the cost of the horses. As far as I know almost nobody shows a profit in this business over a large sample size, except my guys and some of Baffert\'s.
