I am wondering wheter the simple act of sharing in a gift really equates to relying on a misrepresentation. One receives the gift whether one is aware of it or not.
-----Original Message----- From: Gregg Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 6:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does this case have bearing on abortion? You're right, I did mischaracterize the ruling here. However, I still wonder about what Judge Feuerstein said in regard to reliance by an unborn child. -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Wiseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does this case have bearing on abortion? On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 at 2:21pm, Gregg Miller wrote: :The NY Appellate division ruled a child not yet born can sue for :misrepresentations made to her mother by her mother's employer. I wonder if :this is going to have an effect on the rights of the unborn. The article you cite says that a woman can sue for a fraud perpetrated on her mother while she was in the womb, which is very different from your claim that "a child not yet born can sue." So, no, it will have no effect on the rights of "the unborn," just as the property rule that a child born within a "reasonable period of gestation" of the death of a testator gets to share in a gift to a class of children has no bearing on whether a child still "in gestation" has any legal status. Patrick
