5 ms·

From the article "Investigations have determined that lack of oversight allowed for widespread fraud and mismanagement by California Guard officials under press

From the article "Investigations have determined that lack of oversight allowed for widespread fraud and mismanagement by California Guard officials under pressure to meet enlistment targets."

erentz 10y ago
But fraud on the part of the California Guard is an internal matter. If I form a contract with a company that says they will pay me some amount of money, but the company representative was committing fraud internally then too bad. The company needs to deal with that. It can't reneg on its agreement years later after having already fulfilled the terms of the agreement.
- derekp7 10y ago
  If you buy a piece of electronic equipment from a dealer at a flea market, and it is later found out that the merchandise was stolen, you have to return the merchandise to the original owner. Even if there was a valid contract between you and the dealer that sold it to you. I think this is seen as something similar -- the people giving out the bonus money basically "stole" it, so it wasn't theirs to give. Kind of like if a sales person at a store told you "buy now and I can give you an instant rebate", then pulled rebate money from the cash register. I think you'd have to give that money back too (assuming the "rebate" wasn't authorized, and was effectively stolen money).
  - anotheryou 10y ago
    But if the dealer was known he would have to reimburse me, no? Also what if I where no longer in possession of the good?
    - robryk 10y ago
      > But if the dealer was known he would have to reimburse me, no? Yes, but even if you've caused a judgement against him to be passed there'd likely be nothing to collect from (because you're not the only person in such a situation and he's likely had used the money).
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - robryk 10y ago
    Dealing with stolen goods is something that's specially handled by the law (e.g. fencing is a separate crime). All these are situations where due to actions of person A a situation has occurred where either person B or person C must be harmed. The general principle is that the solution should harm that one of them who was more negligent to allow such a situation to occur.
  - Pinckney 10y ago
    This seems to resemble more a problem of agency law. The recruiter was an agent of the government. Is the government liable for their agent's statements to potential soldiers? >[Considering a swimming pool salesman...] Envision a situation in which a third party questioned the agent about the expected life of a chlorinator. Suppose the agent told the third party that the chlorinator's expected life was twenty years when it was actually only five years. Suppose further that the agent made this representation knowingly and with the intent to induce the thirty party to buy the equipment, and that the third party did buy this equipment in reasonable reliance on the agent's misrepresentation. > Even assuming the manufacturer did not authorize the agent's misrepresentation, and in fact told him always to be truthful with potential customers, the manufacturer would be liable if the third party brought a common law fraud action against him. The court would determine liability under an authority analysis, applying the general rule that an innocent principle is liable for an agent's misrepresentations if the misrepresentations fall within the general class of statements that the principal apparently authorized the agent to make. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2114&context=wmlr http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=21...
- tedunangst 10y ago
  In this case though, it seems some of the terms of the agreement were "become a radio operator" and the recipient didn't do that. I imagine the recruiter very likely said "don't worry, nobody will check" but now they're checking.

From the article "Investigations have determined that lack of oversight allowed for widespread fraud and mismanagement by California Guard officials under pressure to meet enlistment targets."

erentz 10y ago

But fraud on the part of the California Guard is an internal matter. If I form a contract with a company that says they will pay me some amount of money, but the company representative was committing fraud internally then too bad. The company needs to deal with that. It can't reneg on its agreement years later after having already fulfilled the terms of the agreement.

derekp7 10y ago
If you buy a piece of electronic equipment from a dealer at a flea market, and it is later found out that the merchandise was stolen, you have to return the merchandise to the original owner. Even if there was a valid contract between you and the dealer that sold it to you. I think this is seen as something similar -- the people giving out the bonus money basically "stole" it, so it wasn't theirs to give. Kind of like if a sales person at a store told you "buy now and I can give you an instant rebate", then pulled rebate money from the cash register. I think you'd have to give that money back too (assuming the "rebate" wasn't authorized, and was effectively stolen money).
- anotheryou 10y ago
  But if the dealer was known he would have to reimburse me, no? Also what if I where no longer in possession of the good?
  - robryk 10y ago
    > But if the dealer was known he would have to reimburse me, no? Yes, but even if you've caused a judgement against him to be passed there'd likely be nothing to collect from (because you're not the only person in such a situation and he's likely had used the money).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- robryk 10y ago
  Dealing with stolen goods is something that's specially handled by the law (e.g. fencing is a separate crime). All these are situations where due to actions of person A a situation has occurred where either person B or person C must be harmed. The general principle is that the solution should harm that one of them who was more negligent to allow such a situation to occur.
- Pinckney 10y ago
  This seems to resemble more a problem of agency law. The recruiter was an agent of the government. Is the government liable for their agent's statements to potential soldiers? >[Considering a swimming pool salesman...] Envision a situation in which a third party questioned the agent about the expected life of a chlorinator. Suppose the agent told the third party that the chlorinator's expected life was twenty years when it was actually only five years. Suppose further that the agent made this representation knowingly and with the intent to induce the thirty party to buy the equipment, and that the third party did buy this equipment in reasonable reliance on the agent's misrepresentation. > Even assuming the manufacturer did not authorize the agent's misrepresentation, and in fact told him always to be truthful with potential customers, the manufacturer would be liable if the third party brought a common law fraud action against him. The court would determine liability under an authority analysis, applying the general rule that an innocent principle is liable for an agent's misrepresentations if the misrepresentations fall within the general class of statements that the principal apparently authorized the agent to make. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2114&context=wmlr http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=21...
tedunangst 10y ago
In this case though, it seems some of the terms of the agreement were "become a radio operator" and the recipient didn't do that. I imagine the recruiter very likely said "don't worry, nobody will check" but now they're checking.