Extra! Extra! Thanks to great DD and actual logic from a couple of our posters here, a spam campaign with respect to a claim of a contract being terminated for cause has been proven wrong and has, in effect, made a mockery of the claims of “never being wrong”, i.e., of infallibility on the part of the campaigner.
In post 9602 on this board, it is claimed that an early termination means a contract is terminated for cause. Is this post intended to mislead the reader into thinking that contracts cannot be terminated by mutual reasons for purposes that make sense to both or all parties to an agreement?
siliconinvestor.com
Thanks to poster Milo, who successfully uses logic to refute the claim that the contract was terminated for cause, in his posts 9607 and 9633
siliconinvestor.com
Posted by: milo3
Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:09:46 AM
In reply to: the_worm06 who wrote msg# 9602
Post # of 9651
Oh my. worm, as stated in the agreement you've been so kind to display, either party could terminate the agreement (for any reason) upon written notice to the other party 30 days before any of several renewal dates.
Apparently the new owner (First Group) chose to do this in lieu of their then current contract with a firm other than Labwire. It was
a dollars and sense decision not to repeat these services.
worm, this is sop in the business world and in lieu of Labwire resigning this client it gives ample evidence of Labwire's superior services.
milo3
siliconinvestor.com
Posted by: milo3
Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 5:19:36 PM
In reply to: the_worm06 who wrote msg# 9615
Post # of 9651
worm, just as I pointed out, the party being serviced by two companies canceled the one they could and is returning to the best of the two in Labwire.
Glad we're in agreement,
milo3
Even more compelling, a poster here with a simple communication with the company, was able to confirm that the spam campaign, implying a termination “for cause,” was wrong and misleading
This poster should be applauded for proving that a mutual rescission of a contract does not mean that it is terminated for cause, as has been spammed on many message boards:
siliconinvestor.com
Posted by: Robsct
Date: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:41:28 AM
In reply to: None Post # of 9651
I have contacted the company for clarification and was told that no contract was ever terminated for cause and Greyhound is still being provided other services directly by Labwire. The Greyhound drug testing is being handled under the new USIS agreement with Labwire and the Greyhound testing business is growing under the new Greyhound owners.
After being proven wrong by Robsct’s DD, the spam campaign now changes, in an attempt to retain even minimal credibility, attempting to claim that another company has terminated a LBWR contract for cause, despite providing no evidence of this happening. This post seems to confuse conjecture with evidence. Is this intended to mislead? The reader should answer this question for him or herself.
Notice how an argument proven wrong quickly changes in an attempt to prove that one is “never wrong, “ that is, infallible. This is a very common tactic used to intimidate posters and to scare away prospective investors.
In this post, it is claimed that a contract terminated early was terminated for cause. Is it forgotten or intended to mislead perhaps that contracts can be cancelled by mutual rescission and that new contracts can be made, which apparently was the case here.
siliconinvestor.com
In this post, it is claimed that an early termination means a contract is terminated for cause. Is this post further intended to mislead the reader into thinking that contracts cannot be terminated by mutual reasons for purposes that make sense to both or all parties to an agreement?
siliconinvestor.com
In yet another post, it is claimed that a contract terminated early “seems” to have been terminated for cause. Notice the use of words that could mislead readers into thinking that the contract was terminated for cause.
siliconinvestor.com
GB-ND
creede |
