3 ms·
That's the whole point of the clause - the threat of counteroffer is there to prevent low-baling. On a related note, A should should have kicked B out - or B w
by DenisM 17y ago
That's the whole point of the clause - the threat of counteroffer is there to prevent low-baling.
On a related note, A should should have kicked B out - or B will eventually find another way to take advantage of A.
- electromagnetic 17y agoA really should have but, with no children and he's already on retirement, I believe B would be getting the company anyway as they are old friends (this happened during a dispute). I believe they do have a clause in their agreement that should one of them pass on the remaining partner can buy out the others shares, opposed to them passing on to spouses.