On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 19:39:47 -0400, Roger Turk wrote: > Since a contract is supposed to be a mutual agreement, both parties should > have an approximately equal ability to understand the contract and > approximately equal strength in negotiating the conditions of the contract. > When one party says, "Take it or leave it," and dangles a carrot in the form > of money (or other tangible benefits) in front of the other party, mutual > agreement goes out the window.
Hi Roger: Interesting point. Among many agreements that are routinely "forced" upon people are divorce "agreements". In most divorce "agreements" neither party gets what he or she wants out of the deal. The lawyers on both sides will collude with each other many times. Eventually they will draw up a "final agreement" and shove it in front of their clients to sign. If either one or the other of the parties wants to object to some of the clauses in the "agreement", the lawyer representing the party would just tell his client that he could litigate this or that issue or he could negotiate the matter with with opposing counsel over the next few weeks, but that would cost several thousands of dollars in additional legal fees. The hapless clients are advised by their lawyers to simply sign the agreement as it stands, or face being ripped off for additional legal fees and court costs. The lawyers plying the divorce craft are very cunning. They will first draw up initial drafts which they both know their clients won't like. Then they will collude again to produce another draft and then yet another draft all at the expense of their clients. During this lengthy process, each lawyer will be telling his client that he is slowly making progress in getting concessions from opposing counsel. During all this time the lawyers are not debating fine points of law with each other in their law offices. They are out playing golf together or sipping cocktails together in a fine restaurant. After the lawyers feel that they have ripped off their clients enough in the process of their "negotiations", they will then draw up an "agreement" which they think they can get their clients to sign. They don't care about trying to make their clients happy. All they want to do is to exploit their clients for as much money as they have. The courts will actually demand that the parties abide by such shady "agreements". Now that really sucks! Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
