Home > Archive > Chess politics > October 2005 > Re: ATTEMPTED CORRECTION TO CHESS DIGEST BREACH: TEXAN CHEATS CALIFORNIAN





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author Re: ATTEMPTED CORRECTION TO CHESS DIGEST BREACH: TEXAN CHEATS CALIFORNIAN
pawnstormCA

2005-10-24, 11:30 pm

Louis,

"a second cash payment upon (TOTAL SHIPMENT and RECEIPT) first
shipment of books, $20,000 cash and a Promissory Note for a minimum of
*$40,000 "

How would the courts handle a contract that seems to have two seemingly
contradictory terms? I am referring to the (TOTAL SHIPMENT AND RECIEPT)
and first shipment of books. These are not the same thing. If the
threshhold for the payment being owed is the first shipment of books,
wouldn't the payment be owed since he acknowledged receipt of nearly
10,000 books. If the threshhold for the payment being owed is the
(TOTAL SHIPMENT AND RECIEPT), the payment wouldn't be owed since the
bulk of the books are not in his possession. How should this be
resolved?

As an attorney, do you think such a contract is enforcable in light of
the contradictions, ambiguities and missing terms (such as legal
jurisdiction)?

Copyright 2003 - 2008 gamesreviews.net Software forum  PC Hardware reviews