Rek,
I don't have to prove you are wrong in this instance relative to this situation to know you are wrong. Heck, even you must realize that contracts are breached all the time, every day, and unless challenged and unless the other party negotiates a remedy the courts can wind so slowly, that there is no sure thing.
Not really. You are confusing the remedy of a breach of contract and the necessary means achieve cause in a termination.
Nope.
If Watt were to be accused of murder, Trump would not be required to wait for the end of a potentially 5 year trial series to find cause to fire. And, like that, even perceived breach of contract would likely be enough for Trump to fire Watt.
Yep. -
Its easy to be accused of things. Like Bill Cosby, for example or Bill Clinton - Accused does not equal guilt. Bill O'reilly was fired with out a trial, because his contract allowed for it. Watt's does not.
"Perceived" breach of contract? Really, now that is a leap of faith. But, I won't laugh, but that is far out there.
I might also point out that under your scenario, Trump could never find cause under any circumstance since Watts contract would be over way before any legal proceedings would end.
I'd agree with you here. You are on the right path. Watt, almost surely can't be terminated. Although he could resign. As written and as litigated, his actions are immune from judicial review.
How would that play out...
Executive - "Watt, you are fired."
Watt - "Denied"
Executive - "No, seriously you are fired"
Watt - "lol, no"
Then what, have watt arrested and thrown in jail? Really, is the dungeon still used?
See, only if anarchy is enforced can Watt be removed.
Rek, I know you've been helpful here keeping people straight with regards to Fannie and Freddie, but on these two, the ability of watt to effectively suspend it by not allowing the board to declare a dividend and the ability or rather inability of him to be terminated are two where your positions hold no water.
