It is Labor Day weekend (and the start of Labor Day week). Ruminations has tried to present short blog postings on such weekends. Frankly, we’ve not been successful. Today’s posting is yet another attempt. So, with 30 words already behind us, here we go.
In the management field of study, there is something called the “Project Management Triangle.” We’re not sure when we first heard the term or discovered the concept it describes. So, when we went to research some “history,” we discovered it isn’t really an obscure secret in other fields of endeavor. Based on long experience though, our industry doesn’t yet seem to have discovered the concept. The “Project Management Triangle” has a number of other names: “Triple Constraint,” “Project Triangle,” and “Iron Triangle.” [“Iron Triangle” is also used to describe an aspect of Washington politics, and we leave the reader to explore that form of its use on her or his own.] [Read more…]
When a carpenter or other craftsperson needs to make “that final adjustment,” she or he reaches into the toolbox and out may come a shim. We’ve all seen shims used, but not everyone knows they have a name. Those wedges, washers, and thin strips of material used to align parts or make them fit are called “shims.” We who draft agreements of every type also use shims. Reluctant as Ruminations is to use the word “all” and mean “all,” today’s use seems accurate. Who among us hasn’t slipped in at least one “notwithstanding anything to the contrary” into every agreement longer than several pages? That’s using a shim because it makes the parts of the agreement “fit” together.
Imagine you are the computer user of the century. There is nothing about using a computer you don’t know. [So you think.] Your friends call you day and night asking, “How do I do this; how do I do that?” Coding? – No problem. Formatting to produce a publishable book using Microsoft Word? – No problem. Manipulating data to prove or disprove human involvement in climate change, if there is such a thing? – No problem.
As we were reading a very recent decision issued by the Supreme Court of Alabama, we once again were preparing to write how wasteful it was for the parties to litigate the issues raised. This urge happens often enough that Ruminations has considered preparing “boilerplate” language to be inserted at the end of many blog postings. Then we got to the concurring opinion. It could apply to many of the “manufactured” disputes created by one party or the other and supported by their advocates. Though the following words by that concurring justice give away part of the story we are going to tell, its content and tone resonate with Ruminations. We suggest that we all step back each time issues like these arise and reconsider our thoughts about litigating them.
We’ve written about guaranties before, most directly in postings that can be seen by clicking: 
A restaurant’s lease permitted leasehold mortgages with the following proviso:
We’ve been thinking about artificial intelligence applications and how they might change, even transform, the way we do our business. Then, we heard an interesting story on public radio. It was about a Southern California manufacturer of sex dolls who was introducing models incorporating artificial intelligence. For reasons quite obvious, the story didn’t get very deep into the details, but we learned that these new models were designed to figure out what their owners wanted and to respond appropriately.
It’s been a while since we used these words: “Say What You Mean; Mean What You Say!” Well, we’re back (and, no, this isn’t going to be a dinosaur’s story.) Today, we report on an unremarkable, unpublished January 22, 2018 Order out of a United States District Court in Illinois. That’s what brings us back to those words.
Follow Us!