X Didn't Violate Any Duties Under Contract With Cresa, Says Its Answer

The X platform asserted 11 affirmative defenses and denied having received remaining invoices listed in a September breach of contract complaint filed by real estate advisory firm Cresa, said its answer Tuesday to the complaint (docket 3:23-cv-04642) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. X denied specified amounts are "due and owing" and said it's “unaware of Plaintiff obtaining the requisite approvals from X Corp. as required prior to payment." The suit alleges Twitter failed to pay Cresa for its advisory services after owner Elon Musk acquired it (see 2309120066) last year. Cresa breached its written agreement with X, thus excusing X from performing all of its obligations set forth in the contract, and barring Cresa “from obtaining any relief under it,” said X's answer. The defendant didn’t violate any express, implied or ostensible duties, obligations or responsibilities owing to Cresa, and the plaintiff’s claim is barred by the doctrines of estoppel and/or waiver and by the doctrine of unclean hands, it said. Cresa’s claims are barred, in whole or part, by its failure to mitigate its alleged damages, and it has suffered no damage or injury as a direct or proximate result of X’s actions alleged in the complaint, said the answer. Each purported cause of action in the complaint is barred because of the doctrine of “frustration of purpose,” the answer said. X's alleged duties as claimed in the complaint, if they existed, “have been excused in that the performance of said obligation(s) is and has been made impractical,” it said. X seeks a judgment in its favor and against Cresa, plus costs of the lawsuit.