|
|
|
|
|
|
by ascar
1879 days ago
|
|
|
You are ignoring the evidence presented, ask open questions beside the point and attack him personally. That's not a way to have a discussion and it feels like you're acting on an agenda. > You don't have to, you misunderstood me. If a contract is flawed, is there a result other than 'misleading'? Or from further up > I'm curious if there's a way you can mess up language in a contract that isn't deceptive/misleading? Of course there is. Especially if you don't conflate misleading and deceptive, because they certainly don't mean the same thing. Not every statement in a contract that might turns out to be against the law was made to deceive one party. And that's so obvious that your question is nothing else but distraction from the situation at hand. A contract can have clauses made in good will in the interest of both parties that turn out to be against the law. E.g. in my country copyright is absolutely nontransferable, but of course I wanna transfer the usage rights for paid work. If the contract would say my copyright is transferred rather than me transferring usage rights it's certainly wrong and against the law, but it's neither misleading nor deceptive of the intent behind the clause. |
|
|
> You are ignoring the evidence presented, ask open questions beside the point and attack him personally. That's not a way to have a discussion and it feels like you're acting on an agenda.
Where have I attacked him? Telling him I think he misunderstood me is attacking? Seriously?
To go over my initial contention here,
Austen's original statement:
"Their approval is a huge testament to our team and our students, as well as an official endorsement of our all-remote, career-focused educational model."
The user's response:
"The BPPE does not endorse schools. They simply said you were no longer operating illegally."
So, Austen clearly said approval, and then I would argue embellished it at worst, and I would further argue it's not unreasonable. "Approval" and "Endorsement" are literally synonyms.
Beyond that, the BPPE doesn't endorse schools, but it clearly does approve them.
Does the user's response seem a generous interpretation to you at all? Or should it not be?
> A contract can have clauses made in good will in the interest of both parties that turn out to be against the law. E.g. in my country copyright is absolutely nontransferable, but of course I wanna transfer the usage rights for paid work. If the contract would say my copyright is transferred rather than me transferring usage rights it's certainly wrong and against the law, but it's neither misleading nor deceptive of the intent behind the clause.
This is actually an answer to my question which the other user never addressed. How does this constitute me attacking him? Do I seem too ignorant to warrant an answer...?
At this point I feel I'm simply being high roaded. The other user clearly ignored or misunderstood many of my questions, and I'm not attacking him for acting in bad faith the way you're attacking me. If you'd like to address any other specific points I'm happy to continue discussion.
edit: spelling/grammar