As I said in another post here in meta, people are posting false info or downgrading my answers when they are correct. It happened here.

Refuse maintenance contract under explicit clause

DaleM said my answer was not correct and someone else downvoted my answer, when it is a. correct and b. close to the other answer listed.

| |

Comments that are invalid should be flagged. (That is, a comment that does not address, or no longer addresses a concern - unless the concern is objectively, inarguably irrelevant or immaterial - about the answer.) However, a comment alone does not make your answer incorrect. I have reviewed that answer and your appears incomplete. Specifically, it is incomplete in a way that would cause the reasonable person to form an incorrect conclusion.

Downvoting is a signal that your answer could be improved. The correct response to a downvote is to try to improve your answer. If your answer is perfect and cannot be improved then there will be upvotes recognising this and you should not need to worry about downvotes.

Attacking those who downvote is pointless. Attacking those who comment and thereby give you the opportunity to improve your answer is counterproductive. It would be easier for users to say nothing and just downvote your answer, but instead they have given you the gift of feedback and the chance to make your answer better. Take it.

| |
  • @user6726's was close to mine, how is his not downvoteable though? There are so many wrong answers on here from the people with a lot of reputation points that probably have never stepped in a court room. I just feel like they only want to be long winded to sound like they know what they are talking about to get points. – Putvi Apr 10 '19 at 17:46
  • That isn't to sound to rude or demean anyone, but so many of these answers say well in contract law this principle can apply when its a situation that has nothing to do with that principle. So many of these answers are a solution being applied to every situation instead of using that principle when it really rights a wrong. – Putvi Apr 10 '19 at 17:56
  • Please take discussion about the answer to the answer. – jimsug Apr 10 '19 at 21:50

Allow me to expand on my comment.

Your answer is not correct because you say:

When they broke the contract by not notifiying you, that gave you the right to either walk away from the contract or try to amend it with them.

Generally, if one side won't hold it's end of a contract it is broken. You can read more about the legal principle here: https://www.upcounsel.com/anticipatory-breach

This is, as a whole, plainly wrong for the following reasons:

  1. "they broke the contract by not notifiying you" assumes facts not in evidence but in the context of the site we can let this slide.

  2. "that gave you the right to ... walk away from the contract" - no, no, no, a thousand times no! Failure to notify the OP of the upgrade is only a warranty of the contract Breach of contract by one party allows the innocent party to:

    • repudiate the contract and sue for damages for a breach of a condition of the contract
    • repudiate the contract and sue for damages for a breach of an intermediate term of the contract if the breach is serious
    • sue for damages for a breach of an intermediate term of the contract if the breach is minor
    • sue for damages for a breach of a warranty of the contract
  3. "Generally, if one side won't hold it's end of a contract it is broken", no - see above. Only in very specific circumstances does a breach by one side allow the other side to terminate the contract. "Generally" a contract remains binding.

  4. The link to anticipatory breach is not relevant - there has been an actual breach by the OP's client. The only anticipatory breach would be if the OP indicated that he would not fulfill his obligations. Your advice to the OP is extremely likely to make the OP liable for damages.

So, the answer is not only wrong, its dangerous.

The other answer is not like yours as it does not assert (wrongly) that the contract is at an end.

Legal termination of a contract other than by performance or agreement is extremely technical and hard to get right. It is extremely dangerous to walk away from a contract even when the other party is obviously in breach of it - most breaches allow you to sue only, they do not allow you to terminate.

I believe that my comment (and vote) were perfectly valid.

| |
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – feetwet Apr 11 '19 at 2:13

You have a regular habit of posting statements that are flatly incorrect about the law, and of citing to support that does not support your answer. A recent example is a series of comments that are flatly incorrect at 'payable in like kind'? 'non-electing' shares?

You've had 27 of 74 answers with negative scores overall because you make such a habit of providing incorrect answers. Please know your limits and know how to provide actual authority in a way that contradicts someone else when you disagree with them.

| |
  • No offense, but you guys downvote any tiny little thing while you cling to some law book explanation of something with no real world relevance to the situation. In the post that you site, you thought that paying in rice is what it means... Anyone trading stocks can tell you its not. – Putvi Apr 15 '19 at 22:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .