From: Jed Rothwell
. . .So he is not exactly an agent. A person working for a joint venture is not an agent [for another party] … Not exactly true, in a legal sense if the qualifier “exclusive” is not used. If Gamberale is not operating in the role of an exclusive agent for either party, that does not negate a joint agency… complicating matters. If his financial interests would align with DGT in any significant way, he can be construed as an agent. Thus his admission against interest is convincing, even if he still retains a potential net benefit in the ability of the joint venture to negate the contract. Perhaps it is less convincing than otherwise, but in contrast the denial of DGT remains entirely self-serving and cannot be believed, without more.
