[jwparkerjr]

I think we are on the same page. I was not justifying their actions, etc. just pointing out that it's not as simple to change the appearance of being big-time spenders as it might seem. All of the obligations could be handled by bankruptcy but the powers that be assured us that would be a disaster, so they decided to use OPM (other people's money) to bail them out.

In my book they should have simply been allowed to go under. That would have negated all this discussion of what they can and can't do at this point.

I am not deciding anything for the courts. Been there, done that and the purpose of a contract is to protect both parties to an agreement from untoward consequences of unforeseen events.

Again, I am not defending them or making any attempt to assuage the deplorable way they did business. Just that with companies this big you are dealing with thousands and thousands of contracts and agreements that are legally enforceable. It's either meet the obligations, declare bankruptcy, or go to court as the defendant in a very expensive and time-consuming breach of contract action.

[jacquej]

This might be a dumb question, but here goes..

When you sign a contract, and the “hook” isn’t mentioned in the contract but added later, don’t you have some legal rights to break the contract?

Just wondering why the contract can’t be broken because the cap n slalries was not part of the original contract...