Edgar Cayce Readings, 257-100

Time and Place: 11:00 to 11:20 A. M. Eastern Standard Time. ... Avenue, New York, N.Y.

TEXT

GC: You will have before you the Paris Medicine Co. of St. Louis, Mo., Messrs. Orr and Grove, the executors; Mr. Sylvan Oestreicher, atty., of Olvany Eisner & Donnelly, 292 Madison Ave., N.Y.C; also Mr. Isaac Lande, atty. in the original deal; Mr. Fred Seely, one of the heirs of Asheville, N.C., and [257] (of ... Ave., N.Y.C.) who has legally earned a commission but has not received same. You will advise [257] as to whether he should follow the advice of Messrs. Lande and the Olvany firm in bringing immediate suit to recover the commission and compensation due [257] from the handling of this sale. You will then answer the questions that have been submitted, as I ask them.
EC: Yes, we have the Paris Medicine Company, as an organization, its officers, attorneys, and the conditions that exist between this organization and [257] in reference to sale of same; also those conditions that precluded or that came about with the attempt to facilitate matters, as to the transfer of same.
In considering those conditions that exist, those things and conditions that precluded or that came about with the transaction in all its phases, it would be well that much of the situation be reviewed and analyzed before such steps of such a drastic nature would be taken - as in bringing suit for same. For, were these conditions to arise, what would be the the answer? "Well, we will deliver the Paris Medicine Company with its holdings as per agreement. We will take from the purchase price any deficiency that was shown by the analysis and the income and outgo, and will then deliver in accordance with those terms." What COULD the answer be?
What grounds, first, then, would there be for the suit? That they did not deliver, or that there was a misrepresentation by the officers as to the actual existent conditions in the organization?
Would there not be the better opportunity, then, for the perfecting of an agreement whereby the validity of the contract, and the agreed commission that was to be paid in the various manners as set forth, becomes rather as a part of the consideration in the delivery OF the corporation, or organization, now while and when there is the desire on the part of all to consider such a sale?
This would necessitate the curtailment of an agreed amount from the commission, as well as several million from the purchase price, but if there is the channel through which this may be put at the present time, then SUCH an agreement with Orr would force the issue with the other members of the estate, or owners of the stock and interests in same, to make such concessions for the sale. And there would, through such an agreement, come the commission that has been or is a part of the contract price.
This is the weaker point in [257]'s position, in forcing the settlement without a sale being actually consummated, and should be considered very seriously before any such movement as filing suit for such settlement.
And again, were there the probability of a judgement being rendered in any part, this would necessitate the curtailment of same even to a LESS amount than might be equitably agreed upon by all parties to the transaction in the present. For, were there the purchaser at the price of the fifteen to sixteen millions of dollars, this would NOT curtail to a GREAT extent than would be so were judgement even given by a jury or a judge!
Hence, as we find, with the considerations that are being given by the firm - that insists that there should be a settlement of same, there is with this organization something of the desire to (for selves, or for those of its clients) obtain possession OF the corporation, or the Paris Medicine Company, and to - as far as possible - eliminate [257] from same. But, with the existent contract, there is LITTLE possibility of this BEING sold or delivered without a judgement of SOME nature or character existent against same.
Hence, CONCESSIONS made by ALL concerned, as we find, would make for a more equitable basis for the handling of the situation at the present.
Or, as this: As the lawyers' firm has a client, as there is the possibility and plausibility of them being able to handle the deal - were it made at a figure that is in keeping with that THEY feel the better conditions at present, WITH the conditions existent with the Paris Medicine and the originators of same - or the holders of stock in the original organization, if ALL could be made to become (or all would be) agreeable TO a price that would facilitate the whole situation, this - as we find - would be the better plan to be worked out.
Who would be considered in same? Of necessity, there would be the consideration of those who were the go-betweens or the protectors of those that were to handle the whole deal at first; the party who handled the first situation or deal, or the individual - see? and [257]'s interest in such measures and manners as to make for an AGREEABLE situation throughout.
Ready for questions.
(Q) By bringing this suit, or if suit is brought, will [257] hurt his personal prestige with any of his friends, considering that he has really earned his commission and Grove was purely at fault by his misrepresentation?
(A) If fact these are the facts, no. Can these be proven or shown to BE the facts, would be then the question. For, as considered in the analysis that has been made (and all these things have been taken into consideration), an equitable basis may be reached whereby there may be the disposing of the Paris Medicine Company at present and ALL parties concerned become AGREEABLE to same!
See, there are MANY, MANY conditions that would be helpful in bringing about such an analysis and such a condition!
(Q) Please advise any other information that [257] must know before entering into an agreement with the attorneys for handling this case, so he will not make errors in obtaining the funds if they are regained?
(A) All of these conditions have been outlined.
First, the attorneys are representatives of individuals - or a group, or organization - desirous of OBTAINING the Paris Medicine Company. That [257] understands, or SHOULD! and that [257] is in the way, with the character of contract, to be sure!
Then, do not JEOPARDIZE self - as we gave given before - in allowing any concessions to be made until they have all been agreed upon BY the parties concerned, and [257] shares alike with them in the variation of the purchase price! And the per-cent would be just as the percent or difference between the twenty-two million and the fifteen million, that may be agreed upon during the present negotiations.
(Q) Considering the fact that if Grove dies it will be difficult to either collect commission or carry on a new deal, should [257] take a chance of not suing, and waiting for a new deal to be made?
(A) The new deal is in his hands, if it is carried through!
(Q) Should [257] discuss the matter with McRoberts or proceed upon advice of Lande and associate counsel?
(A) This has just been given, that all parties concerned should be agreeable to the changes that might come about.
(Q) Acting upon the advice of Mr. Seely, should [257] feel fully justified in proceding this time to bring suit against Edwin Grove of St. Louis, Mo. for the collection of the commission?
(A) This must all be answered in cooperation with that outlined!
We are through for the present.
Copy to Self
Copy to File

BACKGROUND

1/26/33 He obtained 257-99.
1/28/33 He submitted further questions.

REPORTS

2/06/33 He obtained 257-101.