The Herbert Rule

Son, 

Every agreement has the terms of what you will do, and what the other person will do. 

It seems that people remember more what the other person is to do, and less about what they said they would do in return.  

The Herbert Rule is from our good friend - he taught me that when another party breaks their terms of the agreement  - when they fail to deliver their part of the agreement, then the agreement is broken and you cannot be bound by them to deliver what you agreed.  

This applies to all agreements - verbal or written, and it applies to all modalities - including tangible actions, as well as intangible responsibilities and obligations.  

No-one should seek to ‘get out of an agreement’ with this rule.  That is not real.  This is the key principle that allows you maintain your integrity and to not be bound to words you have spoken, on the basis that they were CONDITIONAL, and the conditions were not met. 

In my experience, the agreement for payment of installments of money over a long time is more precarious. The party paying is looking for ongoing conditions met. The other party is just looking for ‘their money’.  Long ago, they have forgotten what they said they would do for each next installment.  If you are ever thinking of rewarding someone, I recommend it is over a shorter time, keep it close to the action and excitement - nothing longer than two years.

Whilst this example seems negative, it is not a ‘universal rule’ to be applied every time someone does not deliver - this is the FINAL POSITION.  

When there is a perceived non-delivery between the parties, communicate together to remind what was the original agreement - what each party was to do for what outcome.  By discussing and reminding the AGREEMENT, if both parties can revert to that on the basis that it is the agreed foundation, then to share how the current situation is ‘not working for me’, it is possible to meet each other in a new agreement with new terms that match the new and changed circumstances.  

Dad.