>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.
Thoughts?
stanbritton.com 
>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?