Originally Posted by
cactiboss
Except the "contractual fact" was illegal. You keep saying this is the "west's position", it is not, it is the position of a federal appeals court. The apa has a dfr and contractual duty to the west to implement the nic. on the lus side. That duty is independent of and has zero to do with the sli and is borne of the contract the apa is now administering.
I think you are making too far a reach (at this point) at least IMO that any claim of "illegality" in the contractual aspects of this integration means APA has a DFR to not only recognize the Nic, but to require it. From my understanding, the 9th compelled no one other then USAPA to do or not do anything. In fact, they went to great pain to ensure their ruling would not be construed as doing anything other then that.
So..........for the umpteenth time (now +2), I understand your assertion, but do not agree with it. I'm trying my best to make this clear in the hope you cease pulling the string in your back in perpetuity......or is that an
Energizer battery ?
