comex wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> comex wrote: >> >>> I spent my 50 VP on **nothing** (pikhq took my >>> VP, called me a fool, and left the Vote Market, no longer obligated to >>> perform the action which I paid all those VP for em to do), >> Then why the hell haven't you initiated an equity case and asked for >> your 50 VP back? > > The thought didn't occur to me at the time (I'm not so much of a fan > of calling equity cases for things that don't violate the contract), > but since pikhq left the contract, an equity case would not be able to > affect em.
You can still invoke the "not envisioned" clause and ask that the Broker be required to amend the Vote Market contract to add this sentence: Upon the addition of this sentence to the Vote Market contract, 50 VP are transferred from pikhq to comex, and then this contract is amended by removing this sentence.
