This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Am I alone in thinking this was pretty unfair to the coal company? I mean, there was clearly a serious risk that Warren wouldn't ever be able to pay, even upon bankruptcy liquidation, meaning the coal company was essentially being ordered to give them coal for free.
Like I said, this case was significantly more complicated than I made it out to be in the post. What the case actually turned on was a provision in the Uniform Commercial Code meant to address situations such as this. A complicating factor was that Warren wasn't even technically in arrears. The terms IIRC called for something like payment within 30 days plus escalating late fees after that, with breach not occurring until the bill was 6 months overdue. Warren had never once paid "on time" but had waited until the last minute and withheld the late fee. There was some argument about whether the coal company had waived that contract provision by accepting payment without protest, and the coal company was arguing that this was evidence that they were juggling their payments to see what they could get away with, and there were rumors of an impending bankruptcy, and that yes, an order requiring them to comply with the contract terms would essentially mean giving away something like $400,000 worth of coal for free.
The case boiled down to the UCC provision allowing the request for reasonable assurances of performance. The judge was sympathetic to the coal company, but he said that if they had concerns they could have requested reasonable assurances at any time, and that anticipatory repudiation of the contract wasn't proper. Then the argument became how long Warren had to provide the assurances and whether the coal company could suspend performance until it received assurances. This is where the whole irreparable harm thing came in, with Warren saying that if they didn't get the Friday shipment that over a thousand employees would be laid off by the end of the weekend and the mill would be idled indefinitely. The final ruling was that the coal company had to make the shipment but that Warren had to make reasonable assurance before the next shipment, and he would dismiss the breach of contract suit as soon as the shipment had been received.
In a general sense, no, it isn't fair, which is why the UCC has provisions for dealing with that kind of situation. If the coal company had concerns it could have asked for assurances a week prior. In any business transaction, there's always some chance that the other party isn't going to hold up his end of the bargain, and that's the risk you take doing any business. The coal company could have protected itself with a condition requiring prepayment back at the formation stage, but they didn't, even though Warren was only a few years removed from coming out of a previous bankruptcy. Up to this point, Warren had held up their end of the deal, just not in a way that inspired much confidence, and there were rumors that they were insolvent. Furthermore, if Warren had already filed for bankruptcy this question wouldn't have even come up, because suppliers have to keep honoring contracts during a bankruptcy.
How come they hadn't repudiated the contract if they didn't pay the late fees?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link