Author: Tony Werten
Date: 08:55:52 05/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2000 at 10:40:44, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >On May 10, 2000 at 05:39:28, Tony Werten wrote: > >>At this point he has a choice. Accepting the new contract or not. If not he can >>still claim the old contract, but he won't get the 70 $ > >That's not right. > >He couldn't claim the old contract, as it is decided he has to pay back Fernando >$20 from that $50. > >That's the full point Van der Sterren had to give away. >Van der Sterren hadn't the opportunity not to play the computer and suffer no >consequences for his score. That was in de initial contract. I think you're mixing up quite a lot of things. > >When he qualified for the championships, these were the rules. When Sosonko said >no, these were the rules. When it was offered Fritz to play, the rules were >changed. Without consent. Who are all those people ? We are talking about Fernando and a russian GM. It wasn't said it was Sosonko. > >> >>As he has been. The guy accepted the new terms and did not do what he was >>expected to do. Actually a reason to not pay him at all. > > >I am very glad a lot people in the real world still have other principles about >a contract and changing it without consent from both than you. It's about the same as changing a joke halfway into a discussion one likes better. If you're changing this into wat is happening at the dutch championship you should change a lot more "facts" >Better remind not do business with you; you never know if you have an agreement >or not. "Well, hey, the ink is still wet. This suits me better. Take it or leave >it". > >We call that a dictate, not a contract. That's your right. It's what we ( that's both of me) call a choice. > >It's all about decency. That's the point. > > >Jeroen ;-}
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.