Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="McHunt, post: 3368878, member: 9853"] Not sure it is, but I presume that's along the lines of what Payne's lawyer is arguing. It can't be as slam dunk as you make out. Otherwise it wouldn't be tied up in court. Meanwhile, Orr's lawyer could be contesting that he had no such obligation, or better to contend he WAS acting in Payne's best interest by retaining his service. I'm sure he could sell the benefit of retaining an agent. And given that Payne did sign within that period, he is bound by the law pertaining to the date he signed. Or maybe Orr will insist Payne did know but signed anyway. Have you heard Orr's side of it? Hard to form an opinion only hearing one side. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)