LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > The Big Board

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 97
4 members and 93 guests
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy, Hank Chinaski, ThurgreedMarshall, Tyrone Slothrop
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-19-2015, 02:05 PM   #2941
Sidd Finch
I am beyond a rank!
 
Sidd Finch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 11,873
Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch View Post
Question: Is it fair play for a prospective employer to tell a candidate who is evaluating other offers “don’t accept any offers until you talk to me”, and then not extend any offer at all?

Imagine that the candidate in question was a finalist for two positions, neither of which is perfect, and with uncertain terms for compensation among other things. Employer #1 tells Candidate to hold off on accepting any offers from Employer #2 until he gets a chance to counter. Candidate gets pressure from Employer #2 to accept the offer, but agrees to wait because Employer #1 is still selecting. On the drop-dead Friday that Candidate gives for an offer, she waits until 3:00 pm without a call, so she sends an e-mail saying she will go with Employer #2. Employer #1 responds with an e-mail saying that he regrets he is unable to make an offer. This leads me to conclude Employer #1 was just trying to keep a fish on the line as long as possible, but doing so by implying that an offer of some kind was forthcoming. Which is surprising, since an answer that “Sorry you felt you had to take the other offer but we're still evaluating; we’re sorry we couldn’t meet the timeline but we understand” would have also been an acceptable answer (and seems safer from an EPL standpoint, FWIW). Only giving a “no” answer at that stage makes it seem like the answer was already no, making the “don’t accept elsewhere before talking to me” seem weird, unless it’s now something employers say just to string people along.

(I’m not asking because I’m on the market; this relates to a someone I’m advising. I’m mostly curious whether people on the demand side of the labor equation think this is fair play.)
Your lead question differs from the backstory.

It's one thing for Employer #1 to say "don't accept until you talk to me." That doesn't imply that the speaker is going to make an offer, just that he wants a last chance. If you're getting pressure from Employer #2, then you talk to Employer #1 and say "I have to make a decision by xxx deadline." There, you've talked to #1 and given him a chance.

But the backstory you tell is that Employer #1 said "don't accept until I have a chance to counter." That does imply that they are going to make a counter, and if they aren't planning to it's a dick move because they are telling the guy to wait.
__________________
Where are my elephants?!?!
Sidd Finch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2015, 02:29 PM   #2942
Atticus Grinch
Hello, Dum-Dum.
 
Atticus Grinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,117
Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch View Post
Your lead question differs from the backstory.

It's one thing for Employer #1 to say "don't accept until you talk to me." That doesn't imply that the speaker is going to make an offer, just that he wants a last chance. If you're getting pressure from Employer #2, then you talk to Employer #1 and say "I have to make a decision by xxx deadline." There, you've talked to #1 and given him a chance.

But the backstory you tell is that Employer #1 said "don't accept until I have a chance to counter." That does imply that they are going to make a counter, and if they aren't planning to it's a dick move because they are telling the guy to wait.
I’m getting what everyone said second-hand from a person who feels slightly injured, so it’s been described to me both ways. I assume since Employer #1 and Candidate are both non-lawyers that one person’s tactical ambiguity was another person’s tacit indication. What the only e-mail on the topic says is “Please let me know before you accept any offers,” which puts this more strongly in the fair play category, if the Candidate simply misinterpreted whatever else was said.

Last edited by Atticus Grinch; 05-19-2015 at 02:33 PM..
Atticus Grinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2015, 08:45 PM   #2943
Icky Thump
Registered User
 
Icky Thump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,623
Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch View Post
Question: Is it fair play for a prospective employer to tell a candidate who is evaluating other offers “don’t accept any offers until you talk to me”, and then not extend any offer at all?

Imagine that the candidate in question was a finalist for two positions, neither of which is perfect, and with uncertain terms for compensation among other things. Employer #1 tells Candidate to hold off on accepting any offers from Employer #2 until he gets a chance to counter. Candidate gets pressure from Employer #2 to accept the offer, but agrees to wait because Employer #1 is still selecting. On the drop-dead Friday that Candidate gives for an offer, she waits until 3:00 pm without a call, so she sends an e-mail saying she will go with Employer #2. Employer #1 responds with an e-mail saying that he regrets he is unable to make an offer. This leads me to conclude Employer #1 was just trying to keep a fish on the line as long as possible, but doing so by implying that an offer of some kind was forthcoming. Which is surprising, since an answer that “Sorry you felt you had to take the other offer but we're still evaluating; we’re sorry we couldn’t meet the timeline but we understand” would have also been an acceptable answer (and seems safer from an EPL standpoint, FWIW). Only giving a “no” answer at that stage makes it seem like the answer was already no, making the “don’t accept elsewhere before talking to me” seem weird, unless it’s now something employers say just to string people along.

(I’m not asking because I’m on the market; this relates to a someone I’m advising. I’m mostly curious whether people on the demand side of the labor equation think this is fair play.)
Dick move. Correct response to a "don't accept an offer" BS is "I am sorry, but when I make a decision it will be final. If you have a concern you need to give me your best offer now."
__________________
You can breathe, you can blink, you can cry. Hell, you're all gonna be doing that!
Icky Thump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2015, 09:57 PM   #2944
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 83,932
Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch View Post
Your lead question differs from the backstory.

It's one thing for Employer #1 to say "don't accept until you talk to me." That doesn't imply that the speaker is going to make an offer, just that he wants a last chance. If you're getting pressure from Employer #2, then you talk to Employer #1 and say "I have to make a decision by xxx deadline." There, you've talked to #1 and given him a chance.

But the backstory you tell is that Employer #1 said "don't accept until I have a chance to counter." That does imply that they are going to make a counter, and if they aren't planning to it's a dick move because they are telling the guy to wait.
am I on ignore?
__________________
like Paigow
Hank Chinaski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 10:19 AM   #2945
Sidd Finch
I am beyond a rank!
 
Sidd Finch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 11,873
Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
am I on ignore?
Not technically. Have you grown tits?
__________________
Where are my elephants?!?!
Sidd Finch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 11:34 AM   #2946
taxwonk
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
 
taxwonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump View Post
Dick move. Correct response to a "don't accept an offer" BS is "I am sorry, but when I make a decision it will be final. If you have a concern you need to give me your best offer now."
Now this is how you play poker.
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
taxwonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 12:36 AM   #2947
Atticus Grinch
Hello, Dum-Dum.
 
Atticus Grinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,117
Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump View Post
Dick move. Correct response to a "don't accept an offer" BS is "I am sorry, but when I make a decision it will be final. If you have a concern you need to give me your best offer now."
I like the cut of your jib.
Atticus Grinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2015, 04:39 PM   #2948
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 83,932
Re: It was the wrong thread

Okay, we sue D, and serve the registered agent on May 1 2014, then the process server serves the company on May 3 2014 (the dates are fiction, please don't tell me some date is a weekend). The May 3 proof got filed with Court.

There is a patent office action a D can bring to challenge a patent in suit, however, it must be brought within 1 year of service. Of course D filed a request for it May 3 2015.

I find nothing about the effect of redundant service (i.e. nothing saying the second service negates the earlier).

The 1 year deadline is statutory and agencies typically have no authority to ignore it. The first service was proper, right, I mean unless there is some "second service negates first." The cases seem to say unless D can prove it wasn't served the proof screw up is not prejudicial-

Thoughts?
__________________
like Paigow
Hank Chinaski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2015, 05:05 PM   #2949
Pretty Little Flower
Moderator
 
Pretty Little Flower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Flower
Posts: 7,908
Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Okay, we sue D, and serve the registered agent on May 1 2014, then the process server serves the company on May 3 2014 (the dates are fiction, please don't tell me some date is a weekend). The May 3 proof got filed with Court.

There is a patent office action a D can bring to challenge a patent in suit, however, it must be brought within 1 year of service. Of course D filed a request for it May 3 2015.

I find nothing about the effect of redundant service (i.e. nothing saying the second service negates the earlier).

The 1 year deadline is statutory and agencies typically have no authority to ignore it. The first service was proper, right, I mean unless there is some "second service negates first." The cases seem to say unless D can prove it wasn't served the proof screw up is not prejudicial-

Thoughts?
One other possible argument for D is that by filing the May 3 proof, you are somehow estopped from claiming the earlier service date, but in the absence of any definitive case law to that effect, what is the downside of making the argument that D's request is untimely?
__________________
Minister of New New Super Heavy Funk.

I am not sorry.
Pretty Little Flower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2015, 08:50 AM   #2950
Not Bob
Moderator
 
Not Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Podunkville
Posts: 5,973
Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower View Post
One other possible argument for D is that by filing the May 3 proof, you are somehow estopped from claiming the earlier service date, but in the absence of any definitive case law to that effect, what is the downside of making the argument that D's request is untimely?
I agree with Flower - it would seem that the best the other side could do is to throw some smoke about the date of service because of the filing goof. I can't think of anything directly relevant to my slip and fall practice, but it seems to me it would be kind of like those statutes setting forth specific (and non-waivable) timing/notice hoops that one is required to jump through when suing a governmental entity.
Not Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2015, 03:18 PM   #2951
Sidd Finch
I am beyond a rank!
 
Sidd Finch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 11,873
Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob View Post
I agree with Flower - it would seem that the best the other side could do is to throw some smoke about the date of service because of the filing goof. I can't think of anything directly relevant to my slip and fall practice, but it seems to me it would be kind of like those statutes setting forth specific (and non-waivable) timing/notice hoops that one is required to jump through when suing a governmental entity.
Why on earth would you give any though to such a painfully boring question if you can't bill the time?
__________________
Where are my elephants?!?!
Sidd Finch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2015, 03:47 PM   #2952
Not Bob
Moderator
 
Not Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Podunkville
Posts: 5,973
Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch View Post
Why on earth would you give any though to such a painfully boring question if you can't bill the time?
Because I am the king of the nicey-nice?
Not Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2015, 04:14 PM   #2953
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 18,714
Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch View Post
Why on earth would you give any though to such a painfully boring question if you can't bill the time?
Thanks, I might have read some of the exchange but for this.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2015, 07:01 PM   #2954
Icky Thump
Registered User
 
Icky Thump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,623
Actual deposition question

I don't know the fucking calendar person at my job is on strike so I had to schedule a deposition myself.

I called the W to book a conference room and was asked "Do you want infused water?"

I responded "How much to serve these fuckers toilet water?"
__________________
You can breathe, you can blink, you can cry. Hell, you're all gonna be doing that!
Icky Thump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2015, 02:25 PM   #2955
taxwonk
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
 
taxwonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by bilmore View Post
Very early this morning, a coded satellite call went out across the globe, and 32,579 programmers caught planes and trains and boats from their various home bases and converged on Bill Gates' Hawaii compound.

The MS complete turnkey product hits the stores tomorrow.

Don't ever cross Bill Gates.
Fucking touchpads
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
taxwonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:30 PM.