Posts from February 2012

Our blinds aren't functional enough for the film noir setting @matthew suggested.



Deflated lantern



Finally took a decent shot of @terry for his QuickBooks ProAdvisor profile

I'm pretty anti-holiday in general but a certain person in my life loves holidays. These were waiting for me at the office this morning. Purple irises are my favorite flower. :-)

Equivalent to adjacent but underneath (sub). Image Salon is subjacent to our office.

Legal context: "Subjacent support rights are the rights of surface owners to not have their land subside from the activities of the owners of underground rights." Coal mining is a good example: as the miners are removing coal, they have to make sure that the surface doesn't collapse. The relation of the subsurface to the surface is "subjacent".

@terry was out at a client's all day while I sat in the office and studied, watching the street traffic and sunshine. We have pretty shadows from all our pretty plants. A client gave us the neat print of a main street painting.

@terry says he logged 48 hours of work this week; I was there for most of it AND I studied. I'm so sick of this. I slept through most of yesterday - took a little nap that lasted about six hours. At least we went to beer club on Wednesday. Next one is 3/14 - heads up to @mrmike and @uncutsaniflush! Get your tickets early at Mr. Goodbar. March features stouts.

Did anyone else see this news?

Why a mobile phone ring may make bees buzz off: Insects infuriated by handset signals

Signals from mobile phones could be partly to blame for the mysterious deaths of honeybees, new research shows.
In the first experiment of its kind, a bee expert placed a mobile phone underneath a hive and then carefully monitored the reaction of the workers.
The bees were able to tell when the handsets were making and receiving calls, and responded by making the high pitched squeaks that usually signal the start of swarming.

Read more:

Is this white stuff?

Nisha got scared of the office chickens so Bill protected her.

Happy bamboo-munching elephant :-)


@terry tried to install the plant hangers but ran into trouble with it.


We got this fabulous whiteboard cabinet from Buffalo Business Interiors but it needs some special attention before it can be hung. I've been using it anyway, sitting on the floor making pictures & lists. It has corkboards on the insides of the doors and hooks for hanging big pads of paper. It's really my dream whiteboard.

I'm reading the info on distinctions between Pennsylvania contract law and common law or Uniform Commercial Code Art. 2 and it includes promissory estoppel, which @kookcity2000 thinks is interesting.

Promissory estoppel allows a promisee to enforce a promise against a promisor even when there's no consideration. Consideration is a legal detriment that binds one to a contract. It's usually money for service or product but it could be product for service or something else.

Example: @lilho promises @paul that she will give him a year's worth of tortoise food if he stops going out dancing for a month. @paul thinks this is a good bargain and stops growing dandelions and strawberries for Basra and T2. At the end of the month, @paul hasn't been dancing but @lilho laughs and says she wasn't serious. Now Basra and T2 are hungry. Can @paul sue @lilho for tortoise food?

Yes! Why?
- Was a contract formed? @lilho made an offer, @paul accepted, so yes.
- Was there consideration? @lilho isn't getting anything for her promise, so no (@paul not dancing for a month doesn't affect @lilho's life although that's what she asked for).
- So why can @paul sue? Promissory estoppel: Because he relied on @lilho's promise by tearing out the dandelion and strawberry garden and an injustice will occur if @lilho's promise is not enforced - Basra & T2 would go hungry. Was it reasonably foreseeable (or even just reasonable) that @paul would rely on the promise? Yes, because @paul thinks growing tortoise food is a pain.

Sorry, @kookcity2000, I already passed through promissory estoppel and didn't write about it. Today's phrase is "anticipatory repudiation". In contracts law, either party can feel a little insecure about whether the transaction is going to happen and demand some reassurance. The other party (P2) has to respond with assurances within 30 days or the first party (P1) can assume that P2 has repudiated the contract.

When P2 has failed to respond or flat out states they don't intend to honor the contract, anticipatory repudiation has occurred. P1 can then seek remedies and doesn't have to follow through on their part of the contract. If P1 doesn't seek remedies, P2 can resume performance (or promise to) and P1 can request assurances that P2 will follow through. P1 is also required to mitigate the consequences of the breach (such as find a different supplier).