Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier
Can other lawyers comment, is it common practise to purposely try and challenge the law and potential loose wording (or pending contracts) prior to a legal event taking place, for marginal gains ... when there is a option of doing your due dillegence to clearify potential mis-understandings without it affecting your legal position?
|
Bit of a rhetorical question I know, but from this lawyer's perspective, no lawyer worth his or her salt would EVER not take the step of confirming the interpretation of the (arguably vague) provision before taking the action given the significant negative consequences of it ultimately being determined that your interpretation was incorrect. It is possible (but I think unlikely in the circumstances) that the ultimate client (owners) could have been advised of the risks and decided to proceed in any event, notwithstanding the risks. My gut tells me Feaster just blew it and, as someone else posted, stated that the Flames disagreed with the alternative interpretation as an a$$ covering measure. Edwards et al are not idiots and I suspect it was ultimately a significant factor in Feaster's firing.