Mailing List Archive
tlug.jp Mailing List
tlug archive
tlug Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]Re: [tlug] Ghosted?
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 09:34:58 +0100
- From: James Tobin <jamesbtobin@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [tlug] Ghosted?
- References: <PR1P264MB418168C3DB45F90DAE10E007B725A@PR1P264MB4181.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <26760.58139.254293.214473@Stephens-MacBook-Air.local> <CAMyPCTQhGb1RTwcq6vcjV5ecFWxGjUy23pdrnp+MexDhub=PUA@mail.gmail.com> <26761.55089.207757.727688@Stephens-MacBook-Air.local>
Stephen J. Turnbull <steve@example.com> wrote: > "Equitable estoppel" just means that the court compels performance of > the contract (rather than deciding the claim is bullshit or awarding > damages). If it's not explicit in the written contract between the > recruiter and the employer, I think your recruiter is probably SOL. > Also, in situations like this it's rarely the preferred resolution, > because it's much too easy for the violator to satisfy the letter of > the contract while providing no substantial relief. Equitable estoppel applies when one party’s conduct leads another to rely in good faith. Here, it was the employer’s repeated signals—not the headhunter's assumptions—that created that reliance. If anyone shifted the goalposts, it wasn’t the supplier.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [tlug] Ghosted?
- From: Stephen J. Turnbull
- References:
- [tlug] Ghosted?
- From: James Tobin
- [tlug] Ghosted?
- From: Stephen J. Turnbull
- Re: [tlug] Ghosted?
- From: James Tobin
- Re: [tlug] Ghosted?
- From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Home | Main Index | Thread Index
- Prev by Date: Re: [tlug] Ghosted?
- Next by Date: Re: [tlug] CW: Josh, put down your coffee [was: Ghosted?]
- Previous by thread: Re: [tlug] Ghosted?
- Next by thread: Re: [tlug] Ghosted?
- Index(es):