|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 06:17 AM EDT |
Business Law - where innocent 3rd party can not be harmed by
principal (due to agents actions).
The concepts go to the question of "harm". Where Google is
an innocent 3rd party (such as a consumer who walks in a
store, and is told by an agent (actual or apparent), and is
led to believe a certain price is what it is, walks out the
door, with paid for product (based on the deal at the time
that the innocent buyer was made aware of by the agent).
Later, when the owner of the store discovers the deal that
the actual agent (or apparent) of the principal, has made,
at a far less price than what the principal wanted, then the
principal can attempt to try to recover the value from the
customer, but has no right to do so, because of the Law of
Agency (again, each situation has it's own set of facts,
that would need to be reviewed by the court of law for the
jurisdiction that the deal happened in).
Google was led to believe that what they were doing was ok
by the most powerful agent for SUN. How can Oracle, who
bought SUN reverse the actions of that key SUN agent, where
harm then can be brought to the innocent 3rd party (Google)?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|