David the troller writes:
>Humor me on this. I need some Marx 101. Let's imagine the
>crew does all their work. They set up the special sound and
>light systems, etc. However, Simon and Garfunkel get into a
>fight and refuse to perform, so the show is cancelled and all
>ticket are refunded. The next night, Simon and Garfunkel
>reunite. The crew, pissed off, refuses to do any work. So
>Simon and Garfunkel go on stage, Simon plugs his guitar into
>the existent sound system, and notwithstanding the lack of
>special lighting, a backup band, etc., the two of them perform
>for 18,000 people who pay $2.7 million.
Don't be silly. You are supposedly a lawyer.
The refusal to perform negated the contract. But not the contractual
duties owed to those expected to aid in the performance.
The pathetic spat between the actual performers (in your little
hypothetical) does not negate what the crew was due. And it is hardly a
narrowed surplus value concept.
Unlike some on here, I like the law. And the law does not negate
equitable results. That has nothing to do with politics. (Or doesn't
have to.)
I also prefer "Doctor Whiskers" (and I reject those revisionists who
have spoken on that subject just recently).
Ken.
--
You're not your job. You're not how much money you
have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're
not the contents of your wallet. You're not your
fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing
crap of the world.
-- Tyler Durden
