This is not fair to him since he should have someone to help on these policy issues. But, he could have used his power to delegate and appoint a cabinet member or is there a Secretary of the Interior or the Treasury? He did not use his power to delegate or seek an opinion from these members of his cabinet if they had been appointed. He spoke and acted unilaterally without any mature, responsible considering of the existing tariff treaties. Tariffs have been addressed in the national power to make treaties which is the power of the Congress; not the executive exclusively although the executive has some power to discuss and levy tariffs. He does not have the power to abrogate what is law and amend existing tariffs unilaterally; when the tariff is part of a tax treaty with a signed intention to stay in place for 300 years; as agreed between the parties that would be a compensatory treaty breach. The point of the treaty is business certainty. He would have to renominate the treaty.
This is not fair to him since he should have someone to help on these policy issues. But, he could have used his power to delegate and appoint a cabinet member or is there a Secretary of the Interior or the Treasury? He did not use his power to delegate or seek an opinion from these members of his cabinet if they had been appointed.
He spoke and acted unilaterally without any mature, responsible considering of the existing tariff treaties. Tariffs have been addressed in the national power to make treaties which is the power of the Congress; not the executive exclusively although the executive has some power to discuss and levy tariffs.
He does not have the power to abrogate what is law and amend existing tariffs unilaterally; when the tariff is part of a tax treaty with signed obligations to stay in place for 300 years; as agreed between the parties that would be a compensatory treaty breach. The point of the treaty is business certainty. He would have to renominate the treaty.
He is entitled to have opinions but to continually say he has changed the rules, applied the Tariffs then changed his mind, never really applied it at any new % and then he says he applied or is applying a tariff again was negligent, a very expensive and irresponsible set of misstatements and he should or ought to have known it was cost worthy in its destabilizing impact. As such, it is to allege now a deliberate, serious, malicious crime of fraud. No one would let a serious paid government employee make statements like this without consequence. There is consequence. Why didn't he do his work before he opened his....phone?
Nation & World News Iconic outdoors retailer in business since 1856 closing 40 locations due to tariffs. The issue with the untimely tariff discussion and unlawful action based thereon is that it is an interruption of commitments; signed and dated with intent and obligation for 300 years. The Treaty was the basis of long term business decisions and it could not be unilaterally interrupted by any one nation without significant legal and compensatory consequence. Every business has been interrupted by the discussion and the threats of change while the law has not changed. There has been no discussion to actually formally change the CUSMA NAFTA agreement. The US government and the White House is being sued for billions for breach of the law for the Presidents negligent business opinion that were contrary to law and that were acted upon by some government officials; with memos sent by some officials; apparently Bondee. The tort is the tort of negligent misstatement. BONDEE IS DIRECTLY LIABLE or she is vicariously liable.
Nation & World News Iconic outdoors retailer in business since 1856 closing 40 locations due to tariffs. The issue with the untimely tariff discussion and unlawful action based thereon is that it is an interruption of commitments; signed and dated with intent and obligation for 300 years. The Treaty was the basis of long term business decisions and it could not be unilaterally interrupted by any one nation without significant legal and compensatory consequence. Every business has been interrupted by the discussion and the threats of change while the law has not changed. There has been no discussion to actually formally change the CUSMA NAFTA agreement. The US government and the White House is being sued for billions for breach of the law for the Presidents negligent business opinion that were contrary to law and that were acted upon by some government officials as a memorial was sent by some officials; apparently Bondee. The tort is the tort of negligent misstatement.
. The five key elements of negligent misrepresentation are: a duty of care, a false or misleading representation, negligence in making the representation, reasonable reliance on the misrepresentation, and resulting damages. Essentially, a false statement must be made carelessly in a situation where there is a duty to be accurate, the other party must reasonably rely on that statement, and that reliance must cause harm.
- Duty of care: A "special relationship" must exist between the parties, creating a duty to provide accurate information.
- False representation: The statement made was untrue, inaccurate, or misleading.
- Negligence: The person making the statement acted negligently and failed to take reasonable care to ensure its accuracy.
- Reasonable reliance: The other party must have reasonably relied on the false statement.
- Damages: The reliance on the misrepresentation must have resulted in financial or other harm.
Iconic outdoors retailer in business since 1856 closing 40 locations due to tariffs
- 934 shares
One of the country’s oldest outdoor retailers has announced that it will shutter nearly 40 locations in response to rising tariff costs.
The Orvis Company, which has been in business for 169 years, is set to close 31 stores and five outlets, per Fox Business. Orvis President Simon Perkins told Fox the move will begin a “new chapter” for the business and will allow a “more focused retail store portfolio
Comments
Post a Comment