Spawned after reading this:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d81786d5f&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true
It got me thinking. Whenever you have a contract between A and B, and either A or B says that about the other one, then shit has gone wrong.
It is not likely to be a good thing when the other participant in the contract makes mention of the binding legal document in reference to the other party.
This led onto a long think about the mechanics and dynamics of contracts. They are created to ensure the best possible exchange between the two parties, yet every-so-often it becomes necessary or desired to change or even nullify a contract entirely.
What do you think is an acceptable level of flexibility in contracts, should they be iron-clad whether anyone likes it or not, or should they have some breathing room to ensure space for swollen body parts (big heads, fat asses or blood-filled dick-waving)?
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d81786d5f&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true
It got me thinking. Whenever you have a contract between A and B, and either A or B says that about the other one, then shit has gone wrong.
It is not likely to be a good thing when the other participant in the contract makes mention of the binding legal document in reference to the other party.
This led onto a long think about the mechanics and dynamics of contracts. They are created to ensure the best possible exchange between the two parties, yet every-so-often it becomes necessary or desired to change or even nullify a contract entirely.
What do you think is an acceptable level of flexibility in contracts, should they be iron-clad whether anyone likes it or not, or should they have some breathing room to ensure space for swollen body parts (big heads, fat asses or blood-filled dick-waving)?