Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 496271)

Question: Is it fair play for a prospective employer to tell a candidate who is evaluating other offers “don’t accept any offers until you talk to me”, and then not extend any offer at all?

Imagine that the candidate in question was a finalist for two positions, neither of which is perfect, and with uncertain terms for compensation among other things. Employer #1 tells Candidate to hold off on accepting any offers from Employer #2 until he gets a chance to counter. Candidate gets pressure from Employer #2 to accept the offer, but agrees to wait because Employer #1 is still selecting. On the drop-dead Friday that Candidate gives for an offer, she waits until 3:00 pm without a call, so she sends an e-mail saying she will go with Employer #2. Employer #1 responds with an e-mail saying that he regrets he is unable to make an offer. This leads me to conclude Employer #1 was just trying to keep a fish on the line as long as possible, but doing so by implying that an offer of some kind was forthcoming. Which is surprising, since an answer that “Sorry you felt you had to take the other offer but we're still evaluating; we’re sorry we couldn’t meet the timeline but we understand” would have also been an acceptable answer (and seems safer from an EPL standpoint, FWIW). Only giving a “no” answer at that stage makes it seem like the answer was already no, making the “don’t accept elsewhere before talking to me” seem weird, unless it’s now something employers say just to string people along.

(I’m not asking because I’m on the market; this relates to a someone I’m advising. I’m mostly curious whether people on the demand side of the labor equation think this is fair play.)

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 496303)

Your lead question differs from the backstory.

It's one thing for Employer #1 to say "don't accept until you talk to me." That doesn't imply that the speaker is going to make an offer, just that he wants a last chance. If you're getting pressure from Employer #2, then you talk to Employer #1 and say "I have to make a decision by xxx deadline." There, you've talked to #1 and given him a chance.

But the backstory you tell is that Employer #1 said "don't accept until I have a chance to counter." That does imply that they are going to make a counter, and if they aren't planning to it's a dick move because they are telling the guy to wait.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 496271)

Question: Is it fair play for a prospective employer to tell a candidate who is evaluating other offers “don’t accept any offers until you talk to me”, and then not extend any offer at all?

Imagine that the candidate in question was a finalist for two positions, neither of which is perfect, and with uncertain terms for compensation among other things. Employer #1 tells Candidate to hold off on accepting any offers from Employer #2 until he gets a chance to counter. Candidate gets pressure from Employer #2 to accept the offer, but agrees to wait because Employer #1 is still selecting. On the drop-dead Friday that Candidate gives for an offer, she waits until 3:00 pm without a call, so she sends an e-mail saying she will go with Employer #2. Employer #1 responds with an e-mail saying that he regrets he is unable to make an offer. This leads me to conclude Employer #1 was just trying to keep a fish on the line as long as possible, but doing so by implying that an offer of some kind was forthcoming. Which is surprising, since an answer that “Sorry you felt you had to take the other offer but we're still evaluating; we’re sorry we couldn’t meet the timeline but we understand” would have also been an acceptable answer (and seems safer from an EPL standpoint, FWIW). Only giving a “no” answer at that stage makes it seem like the answer was already no, making the “don’t accept elsewhere before talking to me” seem weird, unless it’s now something employers say just to string people along.

(I’m not asking because I’m on the market; this relates to a someone I’m advising. I’m mostly curious whether people on the demand side of the labor equation think this is fair play.)

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 496303)

Your lead question differs from the backstory.

It's one thing for Employer #1 to say "don't accept until you talk to me." That doesn't imply that the speaker is going to make an offer, just that he wants a last chance. If you're getting pressure from Employer #2, then you talk to Employer #1 and say "I have to make a decision by xxx deadline." There, you've talked to #1 and given him a chance.

But the backstory you tell is that Employer #1 said "don't accept until I have a chance to counter." That does imply that they are going to make a counter, and if they aren't planning to it's a dick move because they are telling the guy to wait.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 496334)

am I on ignore?

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 496333)

Dick move. Correct response to a "don't accept an offer" BS is "I am sorry, but when I make a decision it will be final. If you have a concern you need to give me your best offer now."

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 496333)

Dick move. Correct response to a "don't accept an offer" BS is "I am sorry, but when I make a decision it will be final. If you have a concern you need to give me your best offer now."

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 496418)

Okay, we sue D, and serve the registered agent on May 1 2014, then the process server serves the company on May 3 2014 (the dates are fiction, please don't tell me some date is a weekend). The May 3 proof got filed with Court.

There is a patent office action a D can bring to challenge a patent in suit, however, it must be brought within 1 year of service. Of course D filed a request for it May 3 2015.

I find nothing about the effect of redundant service (i.e. nothing saying the second service negates the earlier).

The 1 year deadline is statutory and agencies typically have no authority to ignore it. The first service was proper, right, I mean unless there is some "second service negates first." The cases seem to say unless D can prove it wasn't served the proof screw up is not prejudicial-

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 496422)

One other possible argument for D is that by filing the May 3 proof, you are somehow estopped from claiming the earlier service date, but in the absence of any definitive case law to that effect, what is the downside of making the argument that D's request is untimely?

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 496427)

I agree with Flower - it would seem that the best the other side could do is to throw some smoke about the date of service because of the filing goof. I can't think of anything directly relevant to my slip and fall practice, but it seems to me it would be kind of like those statutes setting forth specific (and non-waivable) timing/notice hoops that one is required to jump through when suing a governmental entity.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 496441)

Why on earth would you give any though to such a painfully boring question if you can't bill the time?

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 496441)

Why on earth would you give any though to such a painfully boring question if you can't bill the time?

Originally Posted by bilmore (Post 99504)

Very early this morning, a coded satellite call went out across the globe, and 32,579 programmers caught planes and trains and boats from their various home bases and converged on Bill Gates' Hawaii compound.

The MS complete turnkey product hits the stores tomorrow.

Don't ever cross Bill Gates.