From: Glen Bedel (GBedel@designforum.com)
Date: Wed Aug 27 2003 - 07:37:03 PDT
It seems they don't want the hummer to be as successful as the Jeep or
the VW Beetle for that matter.
So much for future sales.........
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Grammont [mailto:islander@midmaine.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 10:39 AM
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
Subject: Re: [MV] HMMWV v. idiots in government
> "I would be interested in a relevant case
>which shows that one party can break the terms of a covenant whenever
>it feels that it should no longer apply to itself. " Steve, seen
>anybody with a military Humvee ?
I asked for a court case that reaffirmed the legal right to toss aside a
covenant whenever one party feels like it doesn't suit them any longer.
I did not ask for examples of how a covenant can be, in reality,
unenforcable, since there are plenty of such examples. Plus, for all we
know AM General blessed that sale with the "for offroad use only"
proviso. They certainly appear to have put in a LOT of effort to
enforce that clause. Makes me think they were in on the USMC deal but
found that the contract with the customer was, in reality, difficult to
enforce. Doesn't make it legal to break it, just that it isn't worth AM
General's time to come after people (last year my business lost $15k
because it would cost us more than that to get the crooks, so they
walked).
The interesting thing to see is if there will be another sale in the
future. I don't see what harm it could do AM General to do this, but
corportaions are generally not very creative so I have my doubts.
Steve
===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
<mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:23:38 PDT