Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (50582)	6/12/2002 3:53:41 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Most contracts have escape clauses, that define the circumstances by which a party may terminate the agreement. Actually, IME most simple contracts don't. Informally, it is generally acknowledged that as long as there has been no conveyance of property, payment of cash, or service rendered that has not yet been remunerated, in other words, as long as all obligations are cleared, either party may, with proper notification, terminate the contract. Also, IME, not true. It's a fiction that consideration for a contract has to be propety or services of some kind. Part performance of a contract is satisfactory consideration. And when contract calls for one party to refrain from certain behaviors (such as copyright agreements where, let's say, a publisher settles a copyright suit by agreeing not to publish any more copies of the book, or an SEC enforcement agreement where a party agrees not to do certain things) the continued performance of not doing those things is satisfactory consideration to keep the agreement in effect. Let's say, for example, that the SEC negotiates a consent decree where party A will not engage in any stock maniulation in future, and the SEC will drop all charges. A month later party A robs a bank. Does that, in your view, entitle the SEC to rescind the agreement and bring the charges anew? Since it is generally within the right of a party to associate with whomsoever he wishes, the end of a friendship would entail the end of all friendly agreements, First, who said ours was a friendly agreement? There was nothing, IMO, friendly about it. And as to written agreements, which this one was, you're not going to find many courts, at least not in this state, agreeing with you. Finally, the announcement of intention is not generally considered binding in the same way that an explicit promise is, Without commenting on the accuracy of what you say, there was an explicit promise in this case, so it doesn't apply. I appreciate your attempts to defend him, but you make a better philosopher than contract lawyer. He made a deal, I complied, he didn't. That's dishonest. That's lying. That's Laz.