Something I learnt during a short post retirement fun period working in real estate was to ask in an appropriate case:" We can have the listing but do we really want it?".
Nordhaven`s reasons for going with this atypical build are well stated already, but with the added experience would they go there again? What is the risk of another customer with a similar outlook?
One of my main tenets in life is to stay away from a'holes and flakes. It has served me well in both business and personal life. While I have pretty much retired from the business side, I tell our property manager for our rental units that we would rather be vacant for months than have bad or questionable tenants.
I figured that, but they certainly were dragged through the briar bush backwards in the process. If it kept the balls in the air so they could survive it was worth it, and they were not to know how messy the transaction would get. Maybe if they had a different client it might have been easier.Obviously, can't be sure, but I believe given the situation they were in, they would do the same thing again. I read some of what they wrote about that period and they were fighting with everything they had for the survival of their company and for their employees. Sometimes tomorrow's pain is worth it, if it helps you survive today.
Maybe if they had a different client it might have been easier.
....
1. Conconi got Nordhavn to sign an insane contract that they stood no chance of fulfilling 100%.
.....
Crusty you and RT are such pot stirers!!!
I'd like to see you argue that in court. "Your honor, we just couldn't perform, we had no chance, don't blame us, the other party was just a great negotiator."
According to your logic, Nordhavn should have lost? I mean they agreed to do something they didn't do, or maybe you presume to know too much?
Uh, okay. Would like to know what wasn't considerable a reasonable expectation in a build contract. Think your conflating two very different worlds here.
Yeah, I don't' know haven't read the findings.
You said they got Nordhavn to agree to a contract that they had no chance of fulfilling, what does that even mean? All the other you listed is only referring to performing on the contract. I don't know who's right or wrong but come on you can't just go spouting off things like that with no proof or insight into the issue.
Illustrated by the story(true or untrue) of a rural jury, notoriously sympathetic, hearing a sheep rustling case:..Juries aren't great fans sometimes of legalese and often sway toward what they see as right and wrong, reasonable and not....
To my mind, it's all about custoiemr service. But again, I say, PAE must have had great reason to let it go to court.
$ Money is a great motivator, as(ex PM) Paul Keating said"Always back self interest, at least you know it`s trying". Reading about this I suspect PAE became "personally involved" and it wasn`t purely about the $. Though if there wasn`t a $ in it, I doubt they`d have bothered.PAE had one reason only to go to court. They wanted the rest of their money. They got it too. They simply weren't willing to walk away without it.
$ Money is a great motivator, as(ex PM) Paul Keating said"Always back self interest, at least you know it`s trying". Reading about this I suspect PAE became "personally involved" and it wasn`t purely about the $. Though if there wasn`t a $ in it, I doubt they`d have bothered.