Posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2008, at 9:36:11
In reply to Lou's reply to rsk's post-wuduteighk?, posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2008, at 8:54:53
> > > > Lou, my only reply is to cry. that is all i can do now. because my inners are very upsest i am sorry i have to go.
> > > >
> > > > rsk
> > > >
> > > rsk,
> > > I do understand so if and when you return, I think that if all the members here that could offer support and education to you come forward, that there could be a remedy for your situation.
> > > I would like for you to consider the following while you are away if you are going to return:
> > > The tobacco companies deal with that about 2,000,000 people die each year that the scientific community attributes as being from the effects of using tobacco, mostly smoking that causes lung cancer and heart disease and other cancers and emphysema. The tobacco companies used to put out their attempt to show that there are positive benifits, according to them from their product that contains the drug,nicotine, in that the 2 million deaths could relieve some governments of money that they would have had to pay older people in social security like payments that they do not have to pay, and health care public costs that they would not have to pay to older people since they died an early age from the use of tobacco products. I do not know if they are still putting out that type of defense as a positive aspect of their product. I could tie this example in with other examples if you return and would like to continue.
> > > Lou
> > rek,
> > If and when you decide to return, I would also like for you to consider this following example:
> > A friend of mind told me this happened to him amny years ago. He was travleing to California and stopped in a town in Oklahoma where poker was legal. He said that there was a big pot and he was called and had a flush. The other player had a straight. As my friend was taking in the big pot the other player stopped his hand and said, " I have an Oklahoma straight because my straight has in it the 5 of clubs and the 8 of hearts and an Oklahoma straight beats a flush." And a gun was pulled out the other player took the money away from my friend and he had to leave by force.
> > These examples, with others later, I can tie in with what I see in your posts and I think that I have a remedy for this situation and hope that you return.
> > Lou
>
> rsk,
> Another example of a way of thinking that I could tie into all of this that would like for you to cojsider is the following:
> A man was attempting to trade in his car with a dealer and the dealer said to the man, "Would you take $5000.00 for your trade-in? The man agreed to the trade-in and when he was in the office to pay the difference and to take delivery of his new car, the dealer's representative said to the man that they needed $1000.000 more to make the deal. The man was outraged and said that there was a deal made that would allow him $5000.00 for his trade. The dealer's rep then said to him,
> " We asked you if you would take $5000.00 for your trade, not that we would give it to you."
> This went to trial and as I can remember, it is called a {wouldyoutake} and the trial judge ruled that there was an expectation for the man to receive the $5000.00 for his trade and fined the dealer a substantial penalty for what the judge said was deliberate misrepresentation.
> Loursk,
Another aspect of a way of thinking that I would like for you to be aware of as to the following:
An agreemnet was made for a man to build a garage. The man delayed his starting of the job with excuses and stories one after another. Finally, a suit was filed for damages because the job was not started.
In court, the man said that he did agree to build the garege but that he did not say when. The judge rulled against him citing that there was an expectation that he garage would be built {in a reasonable time} so that the one wanting it built could have use of the garage. A substantial judgment was awarded to the one wanting the garage to be built as for the judges rulling in that the man had {a duty to perform} what was understood to be what was agreed on and that was that a garage would be built in a reasonable time to be used. If the garage was built, let's say, 2 years later, the man wanting it built was deprived of the use of the garage during that time. Then it goes to what is {reasonable} which generally means as to what a reasonable person has an {expectation to believe}.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:817435
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080313/msgs/817701.html