@dmyhill You don't have to guess.?ÿ I'm trying to learn what is reasonable to expect to learn from Ajax in this case.?ÿ Let's change the mystery item...

@lurker to be clear, boundary surveys were done both times for Simpson and Flanders.?ÿ Both surveys were filed.?ÿ Flanders had the little extra myster...

@mightymoe I may at some point share the Flanders survey & notation.?ÿ 1) Simpson maintains the area, nothing above ground.?ÿ Ajax was probing aro...

@murphy I accept the fact that Flanders has paid for the new information and is entitled not to share it, certainly.?ÿ It just seems a little odd that...

@mightymoe not hearsay.?ÿ the mysterious item(s) were noted on a filed map, but Ajax will not share any detail and refuses to engage Simpson, for a fe...

@lurker Simpson was made aware that something was found that may suggest an alternative boundary, but Ajax refuses to share details.?ÿ Is that difficu...

@ric-moore good, accurate summary.?ÿ In defense of Ajax, the 20-year-old scope of work was to simply verify the boundary for Simpson.?ÿ However, the ...

@chris-bouffard?ÿ that's my impression.

@mightymoe?ÿ What was found??ÿ Does it matter??ÿ is sharing or not sharing that information depend on what was found??ÿ It is the same company, but n...

@holy-cow?ÿ Actually Homer still owns the land, always had.?ÿ Homer just wants to know what Ajax just found for neighbor Ned.?ÿ Homer thinks since Aj...

@mightymoe sometimes situations are as simple as this.?ÿ what else do you need to know?

@skeeter1996?ÿ the new discovery/information goes to client Flanders.?ÿ Ajax won't tell Simpson.?ÿ Simpson offers to pay Ajax for additional field wo...

@williwaw close, the conflict of interest aspect is the twist