Here's what the article says about that....."Smart got inside the Jeep, and Ricci appeared, asking him what he was doing. An angry Smart told him he was taking the Jeep back, that he believed he had been taken advantage of after going "the extra mile" for him."
This says that Ed went to Ricci's apartment to repossess (i.e., "take back") the jeep.....nothing is said about him negotiating with Ricci to fulfill his part of the 30 hr./week bargain.
"Nowhere in the article does it mention Ed took possession of the Jeep and drove it back to his home."
Let's take another look at the article. It says, "Ricci began showing up for work again but was chronically late. After Smart was convinced Ricci would live up to their agreement, he again let him have the Jeep."
How could Ed have "again let him have the jeep" if it had not been repossessed? No other repossession incident is mentioned in the article.
"Ed went to Ricci's apartment with the intent of having Ricci come back and fulfill his obligations."
See response to quote # 1.
"Again, nowhere in the article does it mention Ed drove the Jeep back to his home."
See response to quote # 2.
I'm off to bed......
I'd say taking back the jeep, or threatening to take it back, was part of "negotiating." In order to negotiate with someone, you have to let them know you have some power.
So maybe Ed took back the jeep that day, maybe he didn't after hearing Rick's (no doubt lame) excuse for never showing back up to work. I think it's a sure bet Ed took someone with him that day, so why are we agonizing over this?