Nice try at misdirection however you still have failed to address any of my questions.
When the facts are not on your side misdirection is all that you have.
Contrary to your claim, I did not "fail" to address "any" of your questions.
I did earlier point out that the contract stipulation (that was a mention!), though arguably enforceable, was not the entire story.
Which is quite different than total failure to address the narrow argument you are attempting to have this entire matter defined under.
It is your own replies to me sir, which utterly fail to address *any* of the points made in my direct communications to you.
The misdirection accusation, though perhaps music to you when directed towards others, is here, narrowly between you and I, much more applicable to you than I in regards to our communications towards one another.
Besides,speaking of unanswered questions, there is still the question of the third party, isn't there? Do you wish to duck THAT one?
How does a party not a signatory to a contract, become bound by the same contract? How do the actions of a party not a signatory rightfully apply an actual signatory?
Until that is answered, the remainder of your entire argument is superfluous, isn't it?