Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
because under the existing regulatory regime, there were no failures. there was simply entirely inadequate regulation and a cheap-ass corporation piloted by the greatest ceo of all times.
remember that the outcome in the gulf was deemed "unlikely"
|
There were failures by BP. Just the simple matter of the oil spilling causing environmental damage can be the basis to end the contract. You have not seen the lease agreement between BP and the government, I have not seen it, the media has not reported on it, after 50 Congressional hearing there has been no calls to terminate the agreement. And on top of it all, BP will one, sell the oil they collect, and two, complete the development of the well and make billions from it in the years after this is no longer a front page news item. The regulatory regime has recourse, they have made a choice to do nothing.
In addition (my frustration is at a peak based on Obama's words), Obama doesn't want BP "nickel-and-diming" the folks in the Gulf region - again deferring control to BP.
Here is what he should do:
Get on the phone and tell the BP CEO that: " I am going to have the Federal government set up a panel(s) to review all individual claims for damages and give them the authority to make a determination for payment and BP will have 48 hours to make the payment to each individual or business. I am going to have my folks draft an agreement for you to sign agreeing and obligating your company to make the payments - in exchange we will allow 10% representation by BP on the panel(s) - do you have any issues or concerns with that? What? You don't think it is going to be fair? Trust me, this will be the best way for this matter to be handled. Agreed, good. Next issue...
Aghhhhh, where is the leadership?!?
---------- Post added at 07:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Ace, you're far afield from where you intend to be. In my job I deal with contracts constantly. They are insurance contracts, but contracts nonetheless. Given that your sole basis for using the term "work" seems to be the fact that there's a contract in place (there's not, by the way, since a license is, by definition, different than a contract), please tell me who works for whom in an insurance contract because I'm now very confused.
While you're at it, who "works" for who with DMR? That's a license too. And my driver's license. Am I working for the state when I drive to work?
Face it, Ace, calling it "work" is a facallacy.
|
I think you are just being difficult, but I will play along.
You know that an insurance contract is a unilateral contract. Only the insurer makes a legal obligation to perform. We can play word games if you want, but "performance" requires "work" - under the terms of this type of contract the insurer is obligated to "work" for the insured assuming the premiums have been paid.
The granting the license to drive is based on the person receiving the license having fulfilled certain obligations under the agreement to receive the license. The license can be taken away (or terminated) at any time the license-holder fails to fulfill their obligations under the licensing agreement. Fulfilling this obligation by the license-holder involves work or effort, otherwise the license will be terminated. You have to act proactively or "work" to get a license and keep it. In the context of employee/employer you do not work for the DMV but you do have to "work" to get and keep a driver's license.