MovieChat Forums > In This Our Life (1942) Discussion > Did the financial explanation make sense...

Did the financial explanation make sense?

posted 6 years ago by Jes' Sayin' (6358)
4 replies | jump to latest

The uncle (Charles Coburn) said he and Asa were partners and that he convinced Asa to invest heavily in new equipment. Then when the Depression came the uncle was more prepared (less in debt?) than Asa was so Asa was forced to sell the equipment at rock bottom prices to the uncle who bought it and built up the business without them. But if they were partners wouldn't they have both failed in business together?

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 6 years ago

I don't remember those details but not necessarily, maybe one invested more than the other, or what they invested cost them more.

[–] NinaK (7) 4 years ago

I just watched the movie today. He explains that he cheated. He did lose the business in equal partnership but he found someone else to bid for the equipment by proxy and bought it up dirt cheap. Then they (Stanley and Uncle) laugh laugh laugh.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6358) 4 years ago

Thanks. Sure, I agree, but it just seems like they just ignored the loss/debt part of it.

[–] heyteegs (1207) 4 years ago

I have to say that confused me a bit too. I had to rewind and listen again.