Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: greenspirit who wrote (366404)	5/28/2010 10:11:02 AM
From: PJr	Read Replies (1) of 793887

It might hinge on the ability/authority to fulfill the agreement/offer. In the case of Sestak, the offer is deliverable since the person offering it presumably was in the position to make it happen immediately and both parties knew that to be true. In the case of Hillary, Obama was not in a position to deliver immediately since delivery was contingent upon his election. Neither "knew" at the time that the offer could ever be consummated. In other words Sestak was given a job offer, and Hillary was given only a promise of one subject to events out of Obama's control at the time of the offer. I'm not an attorney so I'm just speculating ..... Anyone know for sure the fine line of difference? Pat

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next