*@Nemo:  *IB haven't claimed an IB insider broke their contract with IB in
any of this.
Agree "+1" as well :)

*@Tom:*  Case law is all about analogous situations so these matter very
much.
The side-suggestion you make is more about tortious deception (I pretend to
be an employee or official representative of someone, or pretend not to
be), but that's not alleged here.  "Who was involved with whom" and
relationships between those involved were unambiguous by the sound of it.
(It is hard to imagine any of the individuals now complaining "I wouldn't
have done/agreed that if I'd known who you really were/really represented")

FT2

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
<nemow...@gmail.com>wrote:

> FT2, 12/09/2012 13:09:
>
>>     2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty.
>>
>>     Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was
>> involved.
>>
>
> Nobody except IB of course.
>
>
>
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Thomas Morton <
morton.tho...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Of course; if a member of the local Muslim community put on a fake uniform
> for the shop in question, and stood outside handing out leaflets about the
> better place... that would be a problem.
>
> This is what IB appear to be alleging.
>
> All of these metaphor, however, are very interesting; but not really utile
> in advancing the discussion. We can all think up varying metaphors to
> support our points - fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :)
>
> Tom
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to