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
