Axil wrote: >>..A contractor tells a subcontractor what the terms of getting paid are in a >>specification that is agreed upon by both parties. If the subcontractor fails >>to meet that specification in the opinion of the contractor, then the >>subcontractor is not paid for the subpar work.
Actually you have it backwards,Axil, at least under contract law in the United States. Contracts are to be interpreted by the person that did NOT write the contract. In a court of law, the subcontractor's opinion would hold up, provided he is telling the truth about his understanding at the time of the contract negotiation. This of course will be decided by a judge or a jury. It's often wise for a contractor to have the sub write the specifications and then to comment in way of clarification on parts of the contract that the contractor thinks are vague. This is important when it comes to design drawings where tolerances are important and material specifications can be too loose. Agreed upon independent testing is often warranted. Thus, independent third party inspectors or contract completion persons are important to assure a good outcome. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan book : An Impossible Invention A contractor tells a subcontractor what the terms of getting paid are in a specification that is agreed upon by both parties. If the subcontractor fails to meet that specification in the opinion of the contractor, then the subcontractor is not paid for the subpar work. Was your work for DGT up to its specification? Obviously, it was not in the opinion of DGT. On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote: This is really funny seeing people calling DGT presentation amateur while being completely oblivious to the complete incompetence of Rossi's presentation! No one I know has said Rossi does good presentations. The two are unrelated. The fact that Rossi does bad presentation does not excuse bad presentations by DGT. Also, Rossi has never agreed to come to a conference, whereas the DGT people have come to them, and made video presentations. These presentations raised more questions than they answered. DGT agreed to come to the recent MIT symposium but they cancelled at the last minute, which is unprofessional. It's so full of holes that we can hardly exclude cheating from any of them. I disagree. I think that some of Rossi's tests were solid. I see no holes in the ELFORSK tests. No skeptic has published a credible critique of the ELFORSK test as far as I know. The only critiques I have seen are so bad they show that the skeptics do not have a leg to stand on. For me, at least DGT, this is mostly bad mouth by Jed, due his naivete in dealing with business. I have been accused of many things, but naivete is not among them. The business model described here by Axil Axil is that companies such as General Electric or Boeing have succeeded by filching small sums of money from contractors. That is not true. I have dealt with these companies and I am sure they pay their bills. I am quite sure Boeing would not be a profitable major corporation if their main source of revenue was to steal $1,400 at a time from people like me. - Jed
