Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : CMGI What is the latest news on this stock? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paulh who wrote (17333)	3/18/2000 12:32:00 PM
From: SHGLaw	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 19700

While I haven't seen the complaint, and therefore have no basis to provide an opinion, it would seem to me that the suit has a valid justification under a "failure of consideration" theory. This means that you agree to pay a price for something, the price changes dramatically beyond anyone's expectations but the worth of the thing being purchased does not increase. You are thus left paying an amount far in excess of the things value. If this happened in one's personal sphere, most of us would have a fit. If you agreed to purchase a car which, on the day of agreement was valued at $50G, with $50G's worth of cmgi stock, and instead of paying cash agreed to fork over that amount of stock. But on the day of delivery, your $50G's worth of stock was now worth $150G while the car is still only worth $50G. Is that fair? One might argue that you made a stupid deal, or one might argue that both sides bore a risk because the value of the stock could go down, but then one might argue that it didn't go down and the deal is, simply, unfair. Just a possibility. SHG