>Wonder if you would chime in on the following scenario?
What do you do – in a situation where you believe you’ve handled everything correctly, clearly defined expectations and spoken in such a way that the other person knows the responsibility lies with them – when the person won’t take that responsibility and the circumstances deem you go against the expectations you clearly defined and lapse on a commitment that you made to that person? By lapsing in that commitment, you go fundamentally against the original premises of the “argument” that called for them to take the responsbility.
>Just to make sure I got the scenario down right, is the question essentially if someone doesn’t uphold their end of the bargain does that give us the freedom to back out of our end?
>Not exactly. The scenario is that a bargain was made and agreed to from both parties. Party 1 took responsibility and upheld their end of the bargain. Party 2 did not. Then, the circumstances surrounding the entire agreement changed forcing Party 1 to do something against the original agreement. By going against the original agreement, Party 2’s responsibility becomes irrelevant. Does Party 1 go against the original agreement or leave things as they are and wait for Party 2 to accept their responsibility?