Thumbs Up emoji can cost you....
- Thread starter wemay
- Start date
Middle finger can communicate plenty… I don’t see how it is any different.
What if the farmer had been on the winning end of this deal and prices were well below the agreed $17.00/bu?
What if buyer then refused to take the flax at the agreed price?
You can bet that the farmer would have gone after the buyer.
There is no wiggle room in personal ethics and trying to escape an agreed deal simply because it is advantageous to one to do so is not "just business" it's unethical cheating.
What if buyer then refused to take the flax at the agreed price?
You can bet that the farmer would have gone after the buyer.
There is no wiggle room in personal ethics and trying to escape an agreed deal simply because it is advantageous to one to do so is not "just business" it's unethical cheating.
What could be interesting here is that you had two entities which had dealt many times before.
You'd expect some kind of effective communication, one circumventing the court system, to have developed.
Could it be as simple as the unethical cheating mentioned in the post above or could've the buyer's group been effected by a change in membership/ownership resulting in a harder line and the suit.
I'm not saying the buyers should've, in any way, accommodated the seller. I was just wondering if they would've or had in the past.
This is whimsical musing on my part.
"Back when granpappy brought the grain to market years ago........" arguments are useless and infuriating.
1) You have here a great example of sloppy business practice at the least.
2) Shame on the grower for being so detached, especially during times of whacky price changes.
3) With no other details, it sounds like the growers were trying to weasel out of a plain and simple binding agreement.
4) Never enter into an agreement like this without some kind of ceiling. Contracts are supposed to limit relationships.
You'd expect some kind of effective communication, one circumventing the court system, to have developed.
Could it be as simple as the unethical cheating mentioned in the post above or could've the buyer's group been effected by a change in membership/ownership resulting in a harder line and the suit.
I'm not saying the buyers should've, in any way, accommodated the seller. I was just wondering if they would've or had in the past.
This is whimsical musing on my part.
"Back when granpappy brought the grain to market years ago........" arguments are useless and infuriating.
1) You have here a great example of sloppy business practice at the least.
2) Shame on the grower for being so detached, especially during times of whacky price changes.
3) With no other details, it sounds like the growers were trying to weasel out of a plain and simple binding agreement.
4) Never enter into an agreement like this without some kind of ceiling. Contracts are supposed to limit relationships.
Similar threads
