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.

LG> ---

---
 þ MM 1.1 #0381 þ The call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken.