1, $50 for interpreting because limited English proficient client need to get a check
2, Prior warning that check payor's absence and prevention is notice in advance but principle denied
3, Friday, as anticipated, did result negatively and based on good faith, $50 fee is not collected by interpreter
4, Monday, interpreter left note to check payor. Check payor called back but interpreter didn't pick up because of transparency and impartiality.
5, Payee trapped by scoring :"why not?" Still holding and three way conference call did succeed and finally appointment to collect check on the following day Tuesday at 11 am.
6, Payee was late. Payee mention:"Wait"
7, The task is assigned as collecting the check.
8, The unchangable fact is payor put into an enveloppe and invoice stating service fee are deducted $1400 and check total $1000.
9, Upon receipt, payee was asked by interpreter:"If u need to go up, do u?" payee constructive denied. Payee even asked where is the bank and how to cash right away.
10, Interpreter didn't mention any fee because of mutual trust and lack of time due to the second interpretation.
11, Tuesday phone call still mention that payee will come to pay in the evening (payee lack creditability)
12, Wednesday payee didn't call back. Interpreter call because of an invitation to dinner only (from the mutual friend and without intent to get paid, interpreter gain creditability)
13, Wednesday payee spread rumor to third party. Insisted to pay partially.
14, Interpreter request back items previously kept by payee but payee denied first and returned on Sat. After insisting, payee returned home to give back items. (Payee only followed by legal obligation, by force and not by heart simply)
15, Similar behavior can be proved by substantially situation including but not limited to setttlement failed, signed contract Ru was refunded
16, Payee side of story:" Judge order Ru to back out!"
vs the fact is Ruth wrote to back out in motion, initiatate by Ru, Ru surely reckoned the partial amount is kept in retainer fee and luckily Ru didn't run it out completely so as to avoid tragedy.
17, Payee:"Okay I can pay. But finally let us see who is the suffered !" (Intent is malicous)
18, Int:"No creditability client should not be contacted", "unilaterally amend wishy-washy should result unexpectedly bad faith and result" "Unlike Du, he gifted to Dubois" "Unlike Du, he appreciated"
19: lesson: LOSS TWO THOUSAND IN XAVIER == NEVER PAY OUT
20: LESSON: LOSS TWENTY == NEVER DO THE OTHERWISE
2, Prior warning that check payor's absence and prevention is notice in advance but principle denied
3, Friday, as anticipated, did result negatively and based on good faith, $50 fee is not collected by interpreter
4, Monday, interpreter left note to check payor. Check payor called back but interpreter didn't pick up because of transparency and impartiality.
5, Payee trapped by scoring :"why not?" Still holding and three way conference call did succeed and finally appointment to collect check on the following day Tuesday at 11 am.
6, Payee was late. Payee mention:"Wait"
7, The task is assigned as collecting the check.
8, The unchangable fact is payor put into an enveloppe and invoice stating service fee are deducted $1400 and check total $1000.
9, Upon receipt, payee was asked by interpreter:"If u need to go up, do u?" payee constructive denied. Payee even asked where is the bank and how to cash right away.
10, Interpreter didn't mention any fee because of mutual trust and lack of time due to the second interpretation.
11, Tuesday phone call still mention that payee will come to pay in the evening (payee lack creditability)
12, Wednesday payee didn't call back. Interpreter call because of an invitation to dinner only (from the mutual friend and without intent to get paid, interpreter gain creditability)
13, Wednesday payee spread rumor to third party. Insisted to pay partially.
14, Interpreter request back items previously kept by payee but payee denied first and returned on Sat. After insisting, payee returned home to give back items. (Payee only followed by legal obligation, by force and not by heart simply)
15, Similar behavior can be proved by substantially situation including but not limited to setttlement failed, signed contract Ru was refunded
16, Payee side of story:" Judge order Ru to back out!"
vs the fact is Ruth wrote to back out in motion, initiatate by Ru, Ru surely reckoned the partial amount is kept in retainer fee and luckily Ru didn't run it out completely so as to avoid tragedy.
17, Payee:"Okay I can pay. But finally let us see who is the suffered !" (Intent is malicous)
18, Int:"No creditability client should not be contacted", "unilaterally amend wishy-washy should result unexpectedly bad faith and result" "Unlike Du, he gifted to Dubois" "Unlike Du, he appreciated"
19: lesson: LOSS TWO THOUSAND IN XAVIER == NEVER PAY OUT
20: LESSON: LOSS TWENTY == NEVER DO THE OTHERWISE
RSS Feed
