Originally Posted by
APCLurker
My thoughts are that it's not dead or illegal if the able to report in 12 hours is changed in negotioations to better accomodate our other clause. That is part of the point I am trying to make. Secondly, could it not also be interpreted that the able to report in 12 hours is "illegal" or "dead" per 117 due to our 3-hour acknowledgment clause? Why is the one more valid than the other in the face of 117?
I don't see either as any more or less valid a contract clause regarding 117. They are contradictory in light of 117. But why does that automatically make the able to report in 12 the survivor/valid?
And yes, I think we can all agree that sd does not get to decide on this issue via memo.
I'm not even sure I fully understand how we disagree, except I think you're saying that our contract has the same force has the law. I think the law takes precedence, and a contract that is illegal is not enforceable. I've only taken a semester of business law, so this isn't a legal opinion. I just remember being awake once and hearing something-something-contract-illegal-unenforceable.
Whether one of the parties has to simply eat their previously legal right, or both parties must renegotiate, I don't know.
SD isn't the judge: I do know that.