My point was that you (from my reading of the posts between you two) brought the term "hearsay" into this discussion. If you were the one that brought it into the conversation, not sure why you did that. Giving a legal definition of a legal term that you brought into the conversation is a bit of a showoff move. Lot of legal topics I could bring into the conversation here, but have nothing to do with the conversation, too. No need to brag about your knowledge of legal topics not on point.
Also, you are misreading my post, as well:
It's not the email that could be the act of breach of contract, but in some cases it could be (e.g., the act of sending the email breaches a term of the contract), but instead the fact it might be evidence of such a breach of contract.
One thing is certain from this discussion is the fact that Patterson was an absolute terrible selection for candidate for the CytoDyn board because of the conflicts of interest involved and what appears could be forthcoming adversarial litigation among him, his company and CytoDyn. (They have already been adverse to each other in the Patent Office, not merely in the proxy litigation battles). It is really problematic to put someone on the board of a company when they have so many adversarial positions to the company itself. All in my humble (non-legal) shareholder opinion.
Glad this issue of his being on the ballot appears to have been put to rest. Let's move on to more important topics: Getting leronlimab approved and sold!
Also, you are misreading my post, as well:
Quote:Breach of contract in an email? Generally not, there has to be some actual act or threat thereof.
It's not the email that could be the act of breach of contract, but in some cases it could be (e.g., the act of sending the email breaches a term of the contract), but instead the fact it might be evidence of such a breach of contract.
One thing is certain from this discussion is the fact that Patterson was an absolute terrible selection for candidate for the CytoDyn board because of the conflicts of interest involved and what appears could be forthcoming adversarial litigation among him, his company and CytoDyn. (They have already been adverse to each other in the Patent Office, not merely in the proxy litigation battles). It is really problematic to put someone on the board of a company when they have so many adversarial positions to the company itself. All in my humble (non-legal) shareholder opinion.
Glad this issue of his being on the ballot appears to have been put to rest. Let's move on to more important topics: Getting leronlimab approved and sold!
10
