From: Joseph Legris
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-SYMPA (Win95; U)
Subject: Re: Contract Dispute questions.
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:57:42 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:57:39 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Mike Harding wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:03:16 GMT, email@example.com (klmok) wrote:
> >On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:58:48 +0000 (GMT), Tony Williams
> > wrote:
> >>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> >> klmok wrote:
> >>> I am a tech not an engineer and no degree engineer friend wants to get
> >>> involved in the dispute.
> >> Think about that statement. Consider why? no
> >> degree engineer wants to get involved, even
> >> friends. What do they know that you don't?
> >On principle.
> Very dangerous to go to court "on principle" - courts do not
> deal in principles or common sense - they deal purely in
> The Law - and that, often, lacks any common sense at all!
> >Its obvious I had a vey bad contract and an even worse
> Obvious to you maybe. Don't be so sure a magistrate will
> see it the same way. Keep out the courts unless you realLY,
> reALLY, REALLY can't avoid them is my advice. And that
> comes from hard experience.
Right. And consider also that even if you win a judgment you still have
the problem of collection. There are 100 ways to avoid paying
By the way, don't get dependent on government money - it corrupts
everyone it touches. Canadian R+D support requires that the project is
"risky", and a convincing demonstration of risk is project failure.
Unconsciously motivated failure management can keep an unworkable scheme
going for years.