|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:45 AM EST |
I understand their position, it just seems weird to me. I don't really know how
much control a third party in this case has over the contract which is why it
seems odd to me.
In hypothetical, say friend A and friend B come to an agreement in which friend
B will give friend C an awesome hat if he asks for one. Friend C does so, but
upon receiving the hat claims that its just an "Ok" hat. At what point
does Friends C opinion of the hat enter into the deal between friend A and
friend B. Or does the simple fact that friend C is part of the contract between
friend A and friend B give him equal standing to claim a breach has happened
even if both friend A and friend B agree that hat was quite awesome. What if
friend A is silent on the matter and it goes before a judge in this situation.
Is the judges job then to determine if the hat is arbitrarily awesome or would
the judges job be to determine if friend A would find the hat awesome enough
that the contract has been fulfilled?
That is where it seems weird to me, because its a third party to the contract
trying to argue what the contract means, when they didn't really have anything
to do with the original contract. That would seem to me to be entirely why the
standards body offers so many remedies to try to resolve the situation, because
that way the body who did sign the contract can make sure that its interests are
being upheld.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
