If both parties agree to fire me, then as far as I'm concerned the problem is now solved from my point of view.
Though not resolved from the point of view of your clients. My guess is that the market would see to it that you had an early retirement.
Do you see what I mean, J Thomas? You always try to stretch things so far out of shape that there is no relevance to the real world. If I wanted to be a professional arbitrator, I would seek to demonstrate in word and deed that I am a sober, rational and learned person. I would
listen to my clients, so that I could provide the best service possible. If people came to me with a simple case that turned on whether or not a declaration of
limited liability should confer liability or not, I would not go off hunting for dandruff or left-handed, albino pygmies.
Obviously, I think there is sufficient information to make an appropriate assessment of liability.
Obviously you do. But you asked me to arbitrate, and you said I could ask questions, and now you refuse to answer them. You are a bad client.
I answered them, but I am not the client. And anywhere but in your rich fantasy world, the clients would be right. So, the clients have all stipulated that your questions are irrelevant. You could ask one of the farmers the color of their undies, and claim it is relevant, but that does not make it so.
As to anyone being a bad client, have you never heard the business admonition, "The customer is always right"? Which leads to a semi-relevant question. Have you any experience running a real business (i.e., not just calling yourself a consultant, but with employees, offices, marketing, etc.) or have you primarily been a wage slave. I would guess the latter.
Now, I have responded to your questions, i.e., they are not relevant. I have a question for you.
Why do you consider your questions relevant? The answer to which question would materially alter the determination of
liability, the primary question the clients have hired you to determined? You start with your first question. What possible relevance would the LOL's net worth have to do with the issue of
liability? I am quite intelligent and yet can think of no plausible reason why her net worth would have on the question of
liability, the question of
liability, the question of
liability, the only reason I created the scenario in the first place, the question of limitation of
liability in a market anarchy like the Belt.
Again, if you can explain how your questions speak to the issue of
liability, I would be happy to answer them, but I am pretty sure that is impossible for you to do.
POP QUIZ: What is the primary concept at issue in this arbitration scenario?
1. Liability
2. Damages
3. Need
4. Depth of pockets
5. Dandruff