Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-30-11, 04:23 PM   #21
martin ewen
Senior Member
martin ewen's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Trapped-Please send money
Posts: 1,888
Blog Entries: 15

My understanding leaves little room for ambiguity and does not allow for speculative defense.

a offered b, c
C was a concrete, articulated set amount.

any variance by B as to the amount of money accepted that varied from 'c' is not a's gymnastic problem to justify.

How could he 'be a better agent'? In this instance?

Should he perhaps add "and not a penny more!" each time he states the amount he is offering?

Your defense here is firstly an attempt to invent some potential misunderstanding and then attribute responsibility for that to the agent.

a offers b, c.

d is paid c and c keeps d because it's bigger than c and then tries to justify it after the event.

Happens a lot, which is why written contracts are superior.

That much has been learnt.

As to you being impressed by one thing and unimpressed by another.

Is that supposed to mean anything? Do you actually presume that what impresses you and what doesn't impress you by itself matters?

I'm impressed at your inflated delusive self image.

If you want for whatever reason to mitigate some issue it might be best if you simply didn't fuel it.

Your 'argument' is entirely speculative and your counterattack is baseless.

Yes Keith could have put his agreement in writing. However as a verbal contract in good faith it was not Keith who strayed outside the bounds of the agreement.

So in that the question remains, given your charge that Keith should have communicated better.

How? Specifically. Because to suggest someone does something 'better' without suggesting how to is, well I could settle for unimpressive but I'll go for 'unhelpful'

Are you saying that after offering 'C' he should have stated, 'and not a penny more'?

Or should he have explained perhaps the entire situation, inclusive of the agents fee arrangement?

I could see that being one option however I can also see the counter argument that it's none of 'B's business,

On a personal note, don't mind me, I just have a thing of rationally ripping arguments to shreds. I think it's a primitive reflex left over from when we used to have to kill to eat.
martin ewen is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.