Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ajaybhutani
Lets say you inherit a company from your father today..5 years ago your father ageed with a commitment with its competitors for no-competition in a certain sphere.
If you disagree with it now.. it makes sense.. but if you wait for 10 years and then say i never said yes to it.. you are acting like an opportunist.. ..
now just replace copany with iran, father with older regime signing NPT etc and you(son) with new regime..  |
This isnt a proper example because, from a legal stand point a company is a seperate entity from its owners. So it doesnt really matter who inherits what.
Even in this case if I were to argue on the basis of contract stipulations, under contract law, a mutually agreed upon exchange of consideration must take place (ie. an exchange of something of material value). If I dont recieve that consideration or estimate it to be in shortfall, the contract would be void.
If I had to take a circuitous route, I'd buy 49% share into a competitor (doesnt matter how small), rebadge my products under his brands and sell in the same markets.
However examples such as these are of only anecdotal value because in these cases all entities must apriori submit to a "higher authority" (in this case the law of the land) before entering into contracts or formulate arrangements that assume those laws.
In the international context, there is no "higher authority" that a country submits to. There are only mutually agreed upon arrangements. Much of the international frameworks would not even be valid if commonly accepted standards such as equality of all members were to be applied. The P-5 wouldnt exist as it discriminatory neither would the NPT.