><
>They weren't meant to be legally persuasive. They were presented to offer some help/guidance/recommendations to James and share my past experiences. I repeated mentioned that I was not a lawyer, haven't seen the document, and that if he decides to pursue this, he should consult with a lawyer. What's wrong with that?
<


Brian,

I took you up on this offer...


Again, if anyone sees holes in what I've said, by all means please let me know.



You approached the issue from the premise that one cannot look beyond the 4 corners of the document when interpreting the agreement. The fact is, nothing could be further from the truth.

Just because one does not get the result he likes, does not make the agreement unfair. The points you brought up skirt the issue, but do not hit it head on. The last one, dealing with a base retainer fee, I would hessitate to use that language. A retainer is for somebody to do work. If they don't do the work, I get the money back. At least, that is the argument I would make. It is all about using the proper terms of art. The issue is one of liquidated damages. Liquidated damages has a precise meaning.


There are many posts/threads I see where legal issues are discussed with unsound reasoning. This was one such thread. I don't normally participate, although sometimes I do. However, you asked if there were holes in what you said, to let you know. I merely complied with your request..:) While I definitely would have responded to Jame's issues, I would not neccessarily have responded to your post...