If you read your own post, you'll see that you claim that every case involves:
a) a contract
b) a breach of mentioned contract
Yet you seem to reference a case in which there was no contract between Monsanto and the farmer, thus contradicting the aforementioned universal claim a.
Can you explain this seeming paradox? Or are you just abusing the language to paint a pretty picture?
If you read your own post, you'll see that you claim that every case involves: a) a contract b) a breach of mentioned contract
Yet you seem to reference a case in which there was no contract between Monsanto and the farmer, thus contradicting the aforementioned universal claim a.
Can you explain this seeming paradox? Or are you just abusing the language to paint a pretty picture?