Suppose the Tribune had contracted architects John Mead Howells and Raymond Hood to design the Tribune Tower with the promise of partial payment during design and final payment upon completion. Then, imagine the Tribune telling Howells and Hood: “Gee whiz, we had money available pay for your beautiful design, but we chose to spend it on other things. So we must change our agreement to can pay you less than initially agreed upon. We hope you don’t mind.” Would Howells and Hood have kindly accepted the revised contract? What is the difference between this scenario and Illinois employees fighting for compensation they were promised for work they already completed? Are promises meant to be broken?
Posted on: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 01:33:13 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015