-> LG> PETER wrote to STEVEN at 21:27 13 Oct:
-> 
-> LG> SH> So if I understand this correctly, we have software A
which allows
-> LG> SH> the conversion of database produced documents into fax
documents and
-> LG> SH> software B which allows sending the faxed documents by email.  My
-> LG> SH> sense is that A is unique but I recall having seen
several programs
-> LG> SH> that do what your B did.
-> 
-> LG> SH> I should wait until Pete comments but my sense is that the action
-> LG> SH> lies against the reseller and that it is for breach of contract.
-> LG> SH> Pete?
-> 
-> LG>  PB> Steven, that's right on the nose!  Add breach of warranty by the
-> LG>  PB> reseller as  well, for action under deceptive trade practices.
-> 
-> LG> Peter.. not to confuse the issue here, but can it be
"deceptive trade
-> LG> practices" if the vendor rep was acting in good faith,
but merely uninformed.
-> 
-> He may be able to shift the burden to whomever told him that it was 
-> concurrent.  Now, if he could have checked and failed to do so, then
he's firmly on the 
-> hook for making a statement he should have known (with reasonable
inquiry) 
-> was false.
-> 
-> LG> Then again, how "uninformed" could the rep claim to
be since he's been
-> LG> described as one of the most senior sales reps in the company
and wields a
-> LG> significant amount of influence.
-> 
-> His company is responsible for his screw-up under the doctrine of
respondeat 
-> superior; the master is responsible for the acts of their servants.


So long as the servant was acting within the scope of his assigned
duties; right?  How do you handle the defense argument that the servant
was acting outside the scope of his duties  by providing false or erroneous
information?

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5