They “Should Have” vs Didn’t

This post highlights what “Should have” happened [the exact words of a recipient of my claim in the Disputes Tribunal*] with what the truth of what did happen. Enjoy.

Andrew Thomas is a representative of Treadwell Gordon, Ohakune lawyers who, in order to keep my business, “should have” done something different, but didn’t. Instead he unilaterally terminated my contract rather than work through the issue. Basically they commenced work then effectively unilaterally terminated the relationship (lawyers can’t do that BTW) when I asked him to work on his ECC terms, supplied later to me. “Nah!” he said. “Everyone else signs them, so you too must!”

Legion have been the opportunities throughout history where a person “should have” done something but didn’t.

From a Christian perspective the whole mess that we are in now goes back to the Garden of Eden and man who ‘should have’ rejected the temptation – but he didn’t. The subsequent casting out brought us all into this mess we currently have. Lies and deception resulted thus standing for truth can be a revolutionary act (A concept ascribed to Orwell).

BTW there is no sin in a temptation per se. What we should do however is resist it and certainly not try to cover it up.

So this dude’s words that his reseller “should have” supplied me with his terms of trade did not happen. I know this because I read them all and BEFORE I agree to them. Specifically I seek to avoid Interest charges (biblical advice) and PGs – unless they are limited to time and dollars (legal advice I paid for years ago). The above graphic proves this point.

* The Disputes Tribunal does not permit me to use any recording of the proceeding so I have agreed to this in order to sue this dude for $1,701.44.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply