Its what we do best, going round in circles Jorrie represented AEG, the doctor was vetted, to a point, you can't make a blanket statement that the doctor was not vetted. It is logical to me that Michaels team are the last to review the contract.... We don't know if there would have been changes made.
Last Tear, there are no circles. Fact: there is NO evidence AEG vetted the doctor.
If you would like to twist the fact that Jorrie, who is not AEG, did a ten minute Google search to somehow suggest AEG did vet the doctor, you are free to. However, it does not change the fact that AEG did not vet the doctor. It is all in the evidence for your review.
Actually, contracts are generally signed by one party and then sent to the other party to be countersigned. If Murray was repping himself, his signing it first is completely logical because HE agreed with the contents of the contract. That does not mean Michael was going to sign it before sending it to his team. Contracts could have continued to have gone back and forth for weeks before ALL signatures were on it. It happens all the time.
Last Tear, Gerryevans, do either of you remember Jorrie discussing why she did not show the contract to Michael or his team?
I know, I was lazy and needed to get on with something else and I just couldn't find the contract fast enough on Panish's site.
7.3 I believe was changed as a point of law. Note: AEG can terminate the agreement only for cancellations or failure to obtain licences, conduct, treatment etc is dependant on Michael. This clause tells me that Michael has the final say on Murray.
Last Tear, the jurors cannot afford to be lazy and suggest erroneous information to others. Please tell me at what point was 7.3 changed as a point of law when the doctor’s signature is on the contract and Michael passed the next day? Why change it? That is Michael's only chance to terminate the doctor, correct?
And about my posting: I was making it to show you how YOU would have to go through Question 3, not me. You cannot ignore you have to determine "the work [Murray] was hired for" and if he was "unfit" or "incompetent" in that regard first. You're just focusing on a "conflict of interest" without defining and answering the keywords of the actual question.
Korgnex, repeating, I tried to follow your logic and that is why I responded again so you could show me where and if I was missing your logic. I have not ignored what the doctor was hired for although it seems to be a point of confusion for many depending on who they felt hired him.
If Michael hired him, he was hired to deal with sleep issues of which he was unfit and incompetent. If AEG hired him, he was hired by a third party who created a conflict of interest for the doctor. By not putting his patient first, the patient would receive substandard care making the doctor again, unfit and incompetent. If Michael and AEG hired the doctor, he is twice unfit and incompetent.
Now, can anyone please explain how to arrive at an answer of no to question three?
You're not understanding the sense of this termination at all. Of course it has to be AEG Live terminating Dr. Murray's advance payment(!!!). AEG Live was loaning the money to Michael to be able to pay Murray. AEG Live had all rights to set terms for cases in which they would terminate that advance payment. They don't loan someone money without having some legal protection.
Korgnex, oh? You may know legal contracts are very specific to limit misinterpretation and/or re-interpretation. You are suggesting that the doctor’s employment contract is nothing more than a document about advancing him monies? I strongly disagree with you. Why is AEG protecting the advancement? What is the danger AEG is protecting their advancement from? Would they not recoup the monies from Michael?
AFTER Michael's decision AEG Live can "immediately" (read: immediately AFTER) dissolve this agreement about advance payment for Michael to Murray.
Krognex, I find it interesting that you can suggest what confuses me about 7.3 and then repeat it in your explanation although your interpretation of advance monies is again incorrect in my view.
You are contradicting yourself. if MJ cannot terminate the doctor, then why would he send termination instructions to AEG?
Right, the contract shows that Michael COULD decide to terminate Murray's employment, and AEG would execute that termination (i.e. tell Murray, "You're fired.")
It's not that complex IMO. AEG is almost acting like an HR department.
Korgnex, Passy001, AutumnII, Ivy, and others: I believe many of you are trying to re-interpret that clause so you can somehow believe Michael could terminate the doctor. He could indirectly terminate the doctor by submitting his grievances to AEG first and then AEG would terminate the doctor directly. Again, Michael could not terminate the doctor. He could have him terminated by AEG but, he could not terminate the doctor himself.
It is not the same as asking your bank to transfer monies. That is done as a convenience to the customer so the customer will not do those tasks on their own. It is not the same as an HR department handling paperwork after a direct termination by someone in the manufacturing and/or engineering department. The person who worked directly with the terminated employee most likely does not have the expertise to handle those legal documents in a manner that protects the company the way an employee in the HR department can.
Why examples of money transfers and HR departments when we can apply it directly to our own situations? When was the last time anyone here could not terminate the services of their general care doctor directly? When was the last time anyone here had to submit a grievance to a third party before you could terminate the services of your general care doctor?
I am interested in hearing about others experience with terminating their general care doctor through a third party.