Grice [Drew Owens]

Two related points in Grice's "Meaning" stood out to me, as being well reasoned. First addressing the two way nature of sharing intentions; second, the inability of an intention to be relevant to an utterance's meaning when chained to an explicit intention. 

"This points to the fact that for x  to have meaning(NN), the intended effect must be something which in some sense is within the control of the audience (Grice, 1957, 385)..."

"If I intend to get a man to do something by giving him some information, it cannot be regarded as relevant to the meaning(NN) of my utterance to describe what I intended him to do (Grice, 1957, 386)."

It seems that this is evidenced further when a situation arises in which a request, although contextually clear, is not specifically uttered, allowing the participant the option to ignore the 'secondary' intention. (Hence the need for bureaucratic specificity).

This also brings me to my issue regarding Grice's "Cooperation Principle". Does ignoring the secondary intention in the aforementioned circumstance actually infringe on any of Grice's maxims? If the interlocutor understands but ignores the implication, it seems that this implies something as well. Grice shows a number of situations in which flouting or violating a principle creates implication. The only one I can think of it potentially being is the maxim of Quantity.

Is there any case where Grice's account of how "an X" operates in implication (page 38 of Logic and Conversation) doesn't seem to work?