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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hueyone who wrote (179005)	8/11/2004 1:12:24 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Often, the shareholders are wrong. No one who is competent in financial transactions was mislead by the treatment of the stock options. They should be disclosed, as they were on the financial statements. The should be included in the compensation section of the quarterly and yearly reports, at least as to top officers. "Fraud" requires 'Justifiable Reliance". In other words, if you don't read a financial statement you should rely on someone who does. Justifiable reliance. So we have a plaintiff who didn't know the truth, and actual causation, i.e., the plainitff would not have done the deal had he known the true facts. There is yet a third requirement, that of justifiable reliance. Depending on the facts, the plainitiff's reliance on the representation may not be reasonable or justifiable under the circumstances. "Under the circumstances" means that this is almost always a question of fact for the jury to decide, based on the skill, knowledge, education and experience of the plaintiff. Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 498, 503, 198 Cal.Rptr. 55. However, there are a few cases where the courts have found that there could be no justifiable reliance. Typical among these are cases that involve lawyers. Hence, the courts have held that a lawyer could not rely on the statements of her riding instructor that a liability waiver was meaningless and unenforceable (Guido v. Koopman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 837, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 437). Or, in one of the more interesting cases, the court held that a plaintiff could not justifiably rely on representations by a lawyer representing an adversary in negotiations (Wilhelm v. Pray, Price, Williams & Russell (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1324, 231 Cal.Rptr. 355). hartley.com