merryb wrote:
>
> I'm so disgusted by the treatment by Kelloggs towards Michael Phelps.
> He made a mistake by letting someone take a picture of him while he
> was taking a bong hit, but this is ridiculous! It didn't enhance his
> performance, and it had nothing to do with his swimming abilities. I
> guess it's the image thing, but still, I'm boycotting Kelloggs.
> Kelloggs is a food manufacturing company, so I didn't label this as
> OT...Do any of you agree with me?

Not at all. While we don't buy Kellogg's products anyway, they are well
within their rights to legally cancel any contract for any reason.
Phelps was stupid for doing it of course (besides allowing someone to
photograph him...not much of a friend there) and is willing to take his
rather mild 'punishment'. He's worth enough already that it won't matter
one bit.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:41:10 -0700, Arri London >
wrote:


>Not at all. While we don't buy Kellogg's products anyway, they are well
>within their rights to legally cancel any contract for any reason.
>Phelps was stupid for doing it of course (besides allowing someone to
>photograph him...not much of a friend there) and is willing to take his
>rather mild 'punishment'. He's worth enough already that it won't matter
>one bit.

No offense intended, Arri, but I don't think his present financial
circumstances have a bearing on this issue. Should we judge the
rich differently from the poor? I think not.

'If the ultimate refuge of a scoundrel is to wrap himself in the flag,
surely his penultimate refuge is to excuse his misdeeds as "legal"."

Alex

Chemiker wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:41:10 -0700, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> >Not at all. While we don't buy Kellogg's products anyway, they are well
> >within their rights to legally cancel any contract for any reason.
> >Phelps was stupid for doing it of course (besides allowing someone to
> >photograph him...not much of a friend there) and is willing to take his
> >rather mild 'punishment'. He's worth enough already that it won't matter
> >one bit.
>
> No offense intended, Arri, but I don't think his present financial
> circumstances have a bearing on this issue. Should we judge the
> rich differently from the poor? I think not.

You have **completely** misunderstood what was written. The point was
that it doesn't matter if tany or all contracts are cancelled; he has
enough money right now to support himself for the rest of his life. His
'guilt' or 'innocence' were never part of my point. Why would I ever
care if yet another athlete does something stupid? No sportsperson has
ever, or will ever, be a role model for me, even though I swam
competitively in my youth.

>
> 'If the ultimate refuge of a scoundrel is to wrap himself in the flag,
> surely his penultimate refuge is to excuse his misdeeds as "legal"."
>
> Alex

Nothing to do with what I wrote, of course

In article >, Arri London >
wrote:


> they are well
> within their rights to legally cancel any contract for any reason.

Perhaps I don't understand what you posted, or perhaps you didn't mean
to word it that way. Contracts cannot be "cancelled" at will. I
strongly suspect that Phelps has violated the terms of the contract, and
thus cannot hold Kellogg's to their end of it.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> In article >, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> > they are well
> > within their rights to legally cancel any contract for any reason.
>
> Perhaps I don't understand what you posted, or perhaps you didn't mean
> to word it that way. Contracts cannot be "cancelled" at will.

Read your next contract. There are always a list of reasons/terms in
there that either side can use for terminating a contract legally.

I
> strongly suspect that Phelps has violated the terms of the contract, and
> thus cannot hold Kellogg's to their end of it.


That's what was meant. No company would draw up a contract that couldn't
*ever* be cancelled.