Coming back to this, a couple of thoughts about how to get what you want
1/
1/
https://twitter.com/Usherwood/status/1401815335645466633
The general formula is that - ceteris paribus - if you're looking for the other party in an agreement to help you out, you're more likely to get that if you've demonstrated that you've tried to make the agt work
2/
2/
So, in a non-random example, if you agreed a 6 month grace period on chilled meat products accessing the other party and you said you'd use that time to adjust, then if you didn't try to adjust then you're less likely to be cut any slack
3/
3/
Of course, the ceteris is often not paribus, so let's consider that for a while
4/
4/
If you're strong enough, relative to the other party, you can force your new interpretation on them
Likewise if you can cross-link to something they really value
But generally such cases are rare
4/
Likewise if you can cross-link to something they really value
But generally such cases are rare
4/
Indeed, if you are so strong, why enter into an agt in the first place?
And even if you're strong, do you want to establish a precedent for later, when the boot might be on the other foot?
5/
And even if you're strong, do you want to establish a precedent for later, when the boot might be on the other foot?
5/
Short version: the whole point of making agts is that they reduce uncertainty, so trying to make them work is good business, whatever you want to do
/end
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
