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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (53301)	7/12/2006 2:31:55 PM
From: Think4Yourself	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Have been thinking about your post and, given Lennar's actions, your theory makes perfect sense. Lennar thinks Veemac tried to defraud them. The question becomes, can Lennar legally do what they offered? Even if they are right, can they not honor their side of the contract? I have studied enough contract law to know that one party's failure to fulfill their obligations does not give the other party the right to abrogate their responsibilities under the contract. All that second party (Lennar) can usually do is sue the first party (Veemac) to fulfill their side of the contract, or go to court for violation remedies. Lennar appears to have done neither. They had better have very solid evidence to back up their actions as those actions may be driving Veemac into bankruptcy. Veemac has a legal responsibility to pay their employees regardless of what Lennar does unless the employees have agreed otherwise. The Veemac employees sue Veemac, not Lennar, and they had better do it soon! Doubt Veemac will exist much longer.