On 12 September 2012 12:34, FT2 <ft2.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> *@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")
>
>
Sure; but it's not a metaphor. It's a cited precedent.

My apologies if your supermarket analogy was a true precedent rather than a
metaphor.

As to your second point; they explicitly make this allegation in the filing.

Tom
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to