Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Friadoc" data-source="post: 3468233" data-attributes="member: 5445">I guess I'm glad I only do contract work, then, and never a mutual business dealing, as I'd never sign a contract with that clause in it.While I cannot blame any company for wanting it, the idea that announcing that a business deal is over has to be done mutually and approved by the other party seems like giving over too much control.It is not like you can get away with lying in the press release about why things disolved, at least without expecting the normal lawsuits that can follow slanderous and libelous statements.I.E. KLJGKJG does not like rapers of sheep, so IOUYOIY has decided not to renew our business partnership. Obviously, due to the implication, someone, whether or not they are the rapers of sheep, could potentially sue.All that said, I'm not doubting your experience, it doesn't surprise me that such a clause is so common today, I just thought it'd be a throw-away clause that people put in so that they can trade on it for other points or clauses.Sort of like how thinks get added to Bills and such in DC, so that they can be used to kill a Bill or traded off, so that it has a chance of passing and becoming law.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Friadoc, post: 3468233, member: 5445"] I guess I'm glad I only do contract work, then, and never a mutual business dealing, as I'd never sign a contract with that clause in it. While I cannot blame any company for wanting it, the idea that announcing that a business deal is over has to be done mutually and approved by the other party seems like giving over too much control. It is not like you can get away with lying in the press release about why things disolved, at least without expecting the normal lawsuits that can follow slanderous and libelous statements. I.E. KLJGKJG does not like rapers of sheep, so IOUYOIY has decided not to renew our business partnership. Obviously, due to the implication, someone, whether or not they are the rapers of sheep, could potentially sue. All that said, I'm not doubting your experience, it doesn't surprise me that such a clause is so common today, I just thought it'd be a throw-away clause that people put in so that they can trade on it for other points or clauses. Sort of like how thinks get added to Bills and such in DC, so that they can be used to kill a Bill or traded off, so that it has a chance of passing and becoming law. [/QUOTE]

Verification