On 8/26/2016 1:09 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message news:8e3b2e29-5774-

stuff snipped

Builders going bankrupt and stiffing their subs is more common than
you would think.

Except Trump has a long history of doing the stiffing without going
bankrupt. For example, there was a small cabinet maker from Philly
that had been doing work for Trump at one of his casinos. When the
work was done, Trump refused to pay them the last amount which was
substantial, like $100K. They went out of business shortly later.

Pretty likely because they were awful businessmen. Front $100K to Trump?


From the stories I've read recently I'd not lend hom 20 bucks. His
reputation before as a huge billion dollar builder, 100k is nothing.
That was 25% of the contract, not uncommon terms in commercial work.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/a...tiffed-us.html




Who really put the 100K at risk? Trump or the contractor that extended that
amount of credit? Some have said people made so much money working on Trump
projects that it still worked out in the end for many even with their
involuntary contributions though his bankruptcies.


So you accept it as OK to be stiffed?

Would you sign a contract that didn't read "pay as you go" with a character
as well-known as a deadbeat as you say Trump was? Builders have been
stiffing contractors since the building of the Pyramids.

He did get 75%. Yes, there may be more to the story as at 75% payment
his material cost and a chunk of his labor should have been covered.
Not enough information to draw a conclusion, but a 50 year old company
should be fairly sound fiscally.