On 12 September 2012 12:34, FT2 <ft2.wiki(a)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