tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350494960151472132.post7418053593146398903..comments2024-03-29T03:24:48.418-04:00Comments on Knowledge to Negotiate: Order of PrecedenceJackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04890630881239586638noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350494960151472132.post-66330576177770891842019-09-25T15:24:23.446-04:002019-09-25T15:24:23.446-04:00If the MSA was signed first, and did not mention t...If the MSA was signed first, and did not mention the order of precedence for conflict. and later statement of work were signed which again did not mention the order of precedence. in this case if there is a conflict would SOW supercede the MSA ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350494960151472132.post-20744949741125522122017-12-30T09:14:33.449-05:002017-12-30T09:14:33.449-05:00Technically the one you signed has precedence. Whi...Technically the one you signed has precedence. While you didn't sign the prior one, you could argue that the educational assistance program was an employee benefit that you relied upon and they should have made you aware that it would no longer apply when agreed to the loan as the two are in conflict.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04890630881239586638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350494960151472132.post-34717592137149068002017-12-28T14:34:03.770-05:002017-12-28T14:34:03.770-05:00this is the one that was not signed
*Yushin inves...this is the one that was not signed<br /><br />*Yushin invests in educational assistance to Employees with the expectation that the investment be returned through enhanced job performance. However, if an Employee voluntarily separates from Yushin’s employment within three years of any educational assistance payment, the amount of the payment will be considered only a loan. Accordingly, the Employee will be required to repay up to 100 percent of the original educational assistance payment based on the following schedule:<br /> <br />Separation Amount to be Reimbursed<br />Within 1 year of receiving assistance payment 100%<br />1 year to 18 months of receiving assistance payment 80%<br />18-24 months of receiving assistance payment 50%<br />24-36 months of receiving assistance payment 25% <br />*<br /><br />this was the one I did sign<br /><br />"Any Employee who resigns from the company or who is terminated by the Employer, with the exception of layoffs due to the economy, shall reimburse the Employer for the Tuition Reimbursement through deduction from the Employee’s final paycheck based on the following schedule:<br /><br /> The Employee leaves the company<br /> 1 – 365 days after course completion 100%<br /> within 2 years after course completion 80%<br /> within 3 years after course completion 60%<br /> within 4 years after course completion 40%<br /> within 5 years after course completion 20%<br /><br />I have read the above policy and I agree with the condition of the policy. “<br /><br />as you see one deducts an amount from my final paycheck based on a time schedule of 5 years (signed), while the other deducts off of the whole amount borrowed with a time schedule of 3 years(not signed)<br /><br />there's my problem as far as precedence.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350494960151472132.post-73529075406293449932017-12-28T09:32:55.759-05:002017-12-28T09:32:55.759-05:00If the terms conflict, the document you signed for...If the terms conflict, the document you signed for the loan would have precedence. If the terms don't conflict you have to comply with both.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04890630881239586638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350494960151472132.post-34073855529539605972017-12-27T16:32:06.515-05:002017-12-27T16:32:06.515-05:00I have an issue I would like some insight on.
I b...I have an issue I would like some insight on.<br /><br />I borrowed from my company for tuition reimbursement. The contract I signed for the money has a defined action as to what I pay back upon leaving before my time to owe nothing is up. I am willing to pay that amount no questions.<br /><br />Upon leaving the company, they tell me I owe a different amount because they're referencing a tuition contract that is in the employee handbook which I signed years before I even thought about borrowing money. The contract words are mostly the same wording, the difference lies on actions taken when I leave the company. The hand book contract the company would benefit more from which is why they want to use it. However, I signed an updated tuition form and I signed for the money under the terms stated in the contract.<br /><br />How sticky is this situation regarding precedence of which contract will hold weight if it goes to court?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350494960151472132.post-57190385535102138262017-04-20T13:27:29.381-04:002017-04-20T13:27:29.381-04:00Dear Anonymous, the Order of Precedence comes into...Dear Anonymous, the Order of Precedence comes into play when there are conflicts between the documents. Being silent on a point is not creating a position that is in conflict with others.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04890630881239586638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350494960151472132.post-3220510812819646042017-04-19T16:57:26.307-04:002017-04-19T16:57:26.307-04:00What if the superior document is silent on a subje...What if the superior document is silent on a subject, and a subordinate document includes the subject, does that trip the order of precedence clause?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350494960151472132.post-35709483726637865642013-05-16T07:26:30.311-04:002013-05-16T07:26:30.311-04:00Dear Anonymous,
If a contract has expired, only th...Dear Anonymous,<br />If a contract has expired, only those terms that the parties agreed would survive, will survive. They survive only for what was included in that agreement. For example, if you had a 3 year warranty, only the product you purchased under that agreement would benefit from that and would not be impacted by the different terms in the new agreement. <br /><br />The new agreement with the merger clause excluded the prior agreement. For purchases or work under that new agreement, only those terms apply.<br /><br />Based on theses two points, your argument makes sense. Their argument doesn't make sense. For it to apply in the original agreement would need to be clear that the specific language was intended to apply to all work, now and in the future, and survive the expiration. Further there should have been a specific carve out from the merger (entire agreement) clause for that specific language. <br /><br /> Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04890630881239586638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350494960151472132.post-11930161932194175792013-05-15T17:55:54.351-04:002013-05-15T17:55:54.351-04:00Hmm. I have a related problem with two "compl...Hmm. I have a related problem with two "complete agreement" contracts with a company. <br /><br />The first agreement says "This agreement is the entire agreement between parties relating to the subject matter... not changeable except by written supplemental agreement..." <br /><br />Then later after the first engagement expired we signed a new agreement "This agreement sets forth the entire exclusive understanding of the parties as to the subject matter therein... there are no representations, understandings, or agreements hereto which are not fully expressed herein."<br /><br />The later agreement made no mention of the earlier agreement.<br /><br />However, the company argues the earlier contract does not expire and gives them right to "all work relating to the companies anticipated business even when done on contractor's personal time". <br /><br />We argue the later contract which is in-force does not establish this, the contractor owns his right to develop ideas on his own, outside an established SOW. <br /><br />Is the company making an entirely frivolous claim??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com