Server dealer keeps hitting at Elon Musk for $61 million bill — Wiwynn sues X for unpaid IT infrastructure products
Elon Musk didn't pay his bills.
Taiwanese server dealer Wiwynn is suing X for at least $61 million of unpaid IT infrastructure products, alleging Breach of Contract, Promissory Estoppel, and Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Then, according to The Register, the plaintiff amended its complaint, adding Intentional Misrepresentation and Negligent Misrepresentation to its case.
The story behind the case is that pre-Musk, Twitter contracted the company Wiwynn to deliver “unique, custom-designed IT infrastructure products, including rack solutions.” However, since these were bespoke items, the company had to order their components way in advance. According to the complaint, “The components used to build the products are largely unique to the products, resulting in long lead times for ordering such component parts from suppliers,” and Twitter must give “written approval for Wiwynn to purchase the necessary components to manufacture the customer products…and expressly assumed liabilities for the procurement costs.”
But when Musk took over Twitter and renamed it X, Wiwynn’s arrangement with the social media platform fell apart. X has started to default on its bill for the products that the server dealer ordered; furthermore, the company alleges that X did not respond to its inquiries for its past-due balances.
It says that X is on the hook for over $32 million worth of IT infrastructure and server products, plus it has already paid other suppliers in advance to procure components, which X hasn’t paid for yet. While Wiwynn says it could sell some of the parts it ordered, it claims that Musk still owes it at least $61 million for these server items.
However, X said it did not breach any contract with Wiwynn and that the social media platform had not made any firm purchase order when the server dealer went ahead with its purchases and deliveries. Aside from that, X hasn’t made any comment about the case that is currently being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
This case is just one of the many legal issues hounding X. But with Elon’s resources, this is more likely an issue of principle rather than cost. Nevertheless, all we can do is follow the case to see which way the court or jury goes or if one or the other will settle out of court.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.
-
JTWrenn The rich have no rules because they can afford the litigation. Musk and his ilk all play dirty, and should be denounced for it. Reasonable business morality is a good thing.Reply -
ingtar33 this article is deceptive to the extreme seriously misrepresenting the issue at handReply
1) this purchase was made in 2014 without a contract signed. years before Musk took over Twitter
2) Wiwynn claims this project took almost 10 years to build what was bought in 2014, no product was delivered, simply built, twitter paid them almost 30 million dollars in continuing expenses for products not delivered on a contract that was never signed
3) When payments stopped when Musk took over twitter, Wiwynn continued to purchase parts for this IT infrastructure product they had yet to deliver accruing a claimed "additional 32mil in expense
4) when they asked for Payment from X, X replied they had no contract in place and no tech delivered so they would not continue to pay Wiwynn for a product they aren't using and don't need.
and this is what started the lawsuit. this is a lawsuit over a contract which was never signed for a product which was never delivered. The only reason Wiwynn has a leg to stand on is Twitter apparently paid them millions, and that I know is considered defacto consent to the contract by most courts. the problem is it appears twitter/x after musk took over never paid them, so it's debatable if that consent will matter now they're under new leadership. -
jlake3 ingtar33 said:this article is deceptive to the extreme seriously misrepresenting the issue at hand
1) this purchase was made in 2014 without a contract signed. years before Musk took over TwitterFrom the original complaint:
Emphasis mine. Sure sounds like Twitter entered into a contract, although Exhibit A was not attached so I don't know the specifics. The amended complaint references Section 4.3.3, but quotes from it are redacted.
8. On September 24, 2014, recognizing the value that Wiwynn’s cloud IT infrastructure
products would bring, X Corp. (then known as Twitter, Inc.) contracted with Wiwynn and entered into a Master Purchase Agreement. A true and correct copy of the Master Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
ingtar33 said:2) Wiwynn claims this project took almost 10 years to build what was bought in 2014, no product was delivered, simply built, twitter paid them almost 30 million dollars in continuing expenses for products not delivered on a contract that was never signed
3) When payments stopped when Musk took over twitter, Wiwynn continued to purchase parts for this IT infrastructure product they had yet to deliver accruing a claimed "additional 32mil in expenseFrom the original complaint:
Emphasis again mine. Sure sounds like products were delivered at some point.
15. Beginning in November 2022, X Corp. abruptly stopped making any payments to
Wiwynn—including for delivered finished products—and failed to respond to multiple
communications from Wiwynn inquiring about and demanding the past-due payments for delivered
finished products.
ingtar33 said:4) when they asked for Payment from X, X replied they had no contract in place and no tech delivered so they would not continue to pay Wiwynn for a product they aren't using and don't need.From the original complaint:
9. Pursuant to the terms of the Master Purchase Agreement, effective as of September 24, 2014, between Twitter, Inc., for itself and the benefit of its subsidiaries and affiliates, and Wiwynn Corporation (“Master Purchase Agreement”), Twitter, Inc.—now X Corp.—provided to Wiwynn forecast orders for the products it intended to purchase. In accordance with the Master Purchase Agreement, after receiving these forecasts from X Corp., Wiwynn prepared lists of custom components which it would need to purchase in order to fulfill X Corp.’s forecast requirements. The Master Purchase Agreement required Wiwynn to submit these lists to X Corp. for approval before it could purchase the custom components.10. In addition to approving the purchase of the custom components, X Corp. would occasionally direct Wiwynn to purchase additional, non-custom components to be used in the manufacture of products included in X Corp.’s forecasts. When directing Wiwynn to purchase these non-custom components, X Corp. explicitly approved such purposes in writing and assumed liability for the goods.
11. During the course of dealing of the parties for nearly eight years, X Corp. understood that by approving the purchase of the needed components, X Corp. was assuming liability for these components in the event that the components were not used in the manufacture of products forecasted by X Corp.12. In its email correspondences with X Corp., Wiwynn informed X Corp. that it would not begin component procurement needed to fulfill X Corp.’s orders under the Master Purchase Agreement until X Corp. approved its list of custom components.
13. In addition, Wiwynn explicitly informed X Corp. that Wiwynn would not procure noncustom components without an express written acknowledgement from X Corp. that X Corp. would assume liability for those components. Again and again, X Corp. approved these requests in writing.
14. The Parties followed this general course of conduct for approximately eight years without issue. Prior to November 2022, X Corp. placed orders and made full payments for all of the products made from the components which Wiwynn purchased only after X Corp. confirmed to Wiwynn that it would assume liability for those components.
15. Beginning in November 2022, X Corp. abruptly stopped making any payments to Wiwynn—including for delivered finished products—and failed to respond to multiple communications from Wiwynn inquiring about and demanding the past-due payments for delivered finished products.
16. At this time, Wiwynn had procured and paid for, at the direction and approval of X Corp., approximately $120 million of custom components and non-custom components (which X Corp. had expressly authorized Wiwynn to purchase in writing) to manufacture the products forecasted and/or ordered by X Corp. However, at this time, X Corp. also stopped providing any additional instructions for Wiwynn to manufacture or deliver any finished products to X Corp. To no avail, Wiwynn made many inquiries to X Corp. as to how X Corp. would resolve its liability for these unused components Wiwynn purchased to fulfill X Corp. orders.From the amended complaint:
Emphasis still mine. Sounds like Twitter/X had approved of purchases and that Wiwynn had been delivering products.
19. On multiple occasions, Wiwynn expressly informed X Corp. that, without explicit approval, procurement activities for custom components would not commence. X Corp. provided such approval only after conducting internal reviews to ensure that the forecasts were stable and no changes were necessary. True and correct copies of exemplary email correspondence between the parties in which X Corp., through its then Senior Supply Chain Manager Christopher Kan, approved and assumed liability for the procurement of such custom components are attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Unless your belief is that Wiwynn fabricated nearly the entire background of the complaint they filed in court, this doesn't look like "contract which was never signed for a product which was never delivered" where Wiwynn collected millions for nothing and ordered a mountain of parts with no approval. It sounds like they were a regular supplier of IT infrastructure and Twitter/X approved them to procure parts for the next forecasted order, then cancelled the order and stiffed them for the parts they approved as well as product already delivered.ingtar33 said:and this is what started the lawsuit. this is a lawsuit over a contract which was never signed for a product which was never delivered. The only reason Wiwynn has a leg to stand on is Twitter apparently paid them millions, and that I know is considered dejure consent to the contract by most courts. the problem is it appears twitter/x after musk took over never paid them, so it's debatable if that consent will matter now they're under new leadership. -
Bikki From my observation, there is something wrong going on at Wywinn. Their stock lost 50% value in July alone.Reply -
DavidLejdar Not just a "server dealer" actually. In 2023, Wiwynn was apparently involved in nearly 50% of the global server procurement market, including the AI server market.Reply
After going some +290% before, they had a dip, after the quarterly financials had some minus year-on-year about cashflow, yeah. That brought the stock price to around, where it had been at the beginning of the year. The stock market is like that sometimes, see e.g. Intel's stock.Bikki said:From my observation, there is something wrong going on at Wywinn. Their stock lost 50% value in July alone.
Wiwynn is still doing stuff though. E.g. their recently announced Nvidia GB200 NVL72 rack solution, with improved cooling solutions:
https://www.wiwynn.com/news/wiwynn-launches-state-of-the-art-ai-data-center-and-cooling-solutions-at-ocp-global-summit-2024
Whether one considers Wiwynn to be overvalued, or undervalued, or whatever, a bit different topic though. They still have more revenue than Twitter did, when it was still public. -
Joseph_138 There has to be more that we're not seeing, than just a vendor getting stiffed. They probably did crappy work, and crappy work shouldn't get paid.Reply -
rm12
Well, X should sue for crappy work, not unilaterally decide not to fulfil their part of the agreement that seems in one way or another to be in place. And even without written contract, if they were paying bills, they still acknowledged some kind of contract was in place.Joseph_138 said:There has to be more that we're not seeing, than just a vendor getting stiffed. They probably did crappy work, and crappy work shouldn't get paid. -
TravellingLight The Jowi author person writes "Musk didn't pay his bills." This statement is false under US law and people familiar with the United States would know that. It is a matter for the court to determine whether Musk "paid his bills". Until the matter is adjudicated, the reporter may only write that there is a dispute.Reply
The author also naively fails to recognize that Musk has very sophisticated corporate counsel and that a man changing/saving the world is involved with contract disputes originating from acquisitions.
Meanwhile, https://www.msn.com/en-in/lifestyle/whats-hot/nvidias-jensen-huang-is-all-praises-for-elon-musk-s-xai-supercomputer-superhuman-feat/ar-AA1shfSx -
palladin9479 Ehh... his article is just straight up BS. Musk and X are 100% separate legal entities. They are either sueing private citizen Mr Musk or they are sueing corporation X. Either Elon Musk entered into a private contract or X (Twitter) entered into a private contract.Reply
Stop lying and be honest with which it is. -
waltc3 Musk is not responsible for Twitter's unpaid bills that occurred prior to his purchasing the company. X had nothing to do with this matter...;) Of course not. The suits are best lodged against Jack Dorsey and friends, who divvied up the billions of dollars Musk paid for a censorious Twitter that was afloat from government and other left-wing sources, paying for illegal censorship of Americans, from Presidents to Senators, physicians and everyday Americans who all have freedom of speech rights. This guy gets nothing from Musk's X, seems to me. It's a waste of time, and likely it's nothing but more political BS from the left. Since Musk exercised his right as an American to freedom of speech, he has been under attack by the Biden regime ever since.Reply
Please refrain from saying false things like "Musk doesn't pay his bills"--that really diminishes this site into a partisan hack. Indeed, Musk is outstanding at paying his bills, as Dorsey and Twitter stockholders discovered for themselves. You sort of goofed up already on the tariffs article, as Biden kept Trump's tariffs on and even added to them! As well, during the Trump term, all computer products for the US consumer markets were exempt, at the time. Uninformed people tried to blame the shortages on the tariffs, but that had nothing to do with them, as Lisa Su and others in the know stated at the time.