consultants are sandburs

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Commercial reasonableness has a place in analysis of when competition might cross over to commercial predation. Pricing below cost to injure a competitior.

What's it cost, is clearly a relevant question. As is cost/benefit, with a full spectrum of benefits and downside considered in an instance of "official newspaper" public decision making.

But offering zero pricing seems only short of a predatory tactic, i.e., if cost is zero making the deal a net wash rather than a certain loss (cost in excess of payback).

Not paying any fmv rent - Would that be possible? Some things denied public sunshine engender troublesome speculative questions. Where a contract exists, what exact terms apply, and toward what end(s)? And does it pass muster in terms of commercial reasonableness and product/service pricing norms.

I lose a bit on each unit but I make up for it in volume, is a joke because it assaults normally held concepts of commercially reasonable activity - being in business - with success the aim and having a plan and an adherence to basic fair business concepts.

Below is text of a letter obtained from City of Nowthen in reply to a Public Data Disclosure Request for Response I filed with the City. What of it raises commercial reasonableness concerns with readers:

This is a crafted final paragraph, Record online - dated Feb. 6, 2015:

At the council meeting, Mr. Kysylyczyn informed them that Mr. Murray has made continual attacks against the Record and that several elected officials have an opinion of him that ranges from negative to disgust. Mr. Kysylyczyn stated that he did not support conducting business in this manner and that generally Mr. Murray’s attacks were not worthy of a response. He said that it was not in his charcter to make baseless attacks against Mr. Murray or the UnionHerald. - ACR

Presumably the paragraph was written by Kysylyczyn or under his editorial review.

Absent in the paragraph and in item earlier paragraphs, curiously, is any allegation that generic "attacks" by Murray against Kysylyczyn and his website operation are in any major way false.

Saying he would not make baseless [verbal] attacks simply is an important step short of saying attacks against him and his activities (involving the Blaine site he claims as an in-county office, or otherwise) were defamatory, where truth is an absolute defense.

"Attacked," yes, he said that. By one of a competitor's key management people. He said that too.

Wrongly so, the man implies. He defines one instance of something he alleges Murray was saying with an outright definitive "It's false" published factual assertion - by Kysylyczyn. Related to purported mention of possible investigations during discussion/negotiations which may have involved a possible "due diligence" aspect of public officials meeeting due diligence enquiry norms (instances outside of Nowthen in contexts apart from decision by Nowthen's council and/or administration in designating its official newspaper).

___________FURTHER UPDATE____________
To my knowledge, there is no definitive Kysylyczyn public statement on record of whether he's ever bought any printing ink or newsprint. And if so, how much, when?

Somewhere that ought to have been asked and answered of record, in the course of Record solicitation of official notice publication business within Anoka County and its municipalities. Ever. Newsprint. Ink. Delivery services. It is what one ordinarily thinks of in thinking of the commonly used term "newspaper," in commonly used contexts - including being honestly headquartered in county and "publishing" in-county a "newspaper" (as the term is commonly understood in ordinary usage).

No comments: