Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Racki
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.
|
Damn that was fun to read.