2 ms·
The court wasn't backed into a corner. If it wasn't a breach of fiduciary duty the case would have been won by the Newmark -- they can't just say, "They did som
by repsilat 8y ago
The court wasn't backed into a corner. If it wasn't a breach of fiduciary duty the case would have been won by the Newmark -- they can't just say, "They did something wrong so we have to punish them somehow, and you only gave us one option." That isn't how the law works.
The section you quoted makes clear that whether or not it was a breach of contract, it certainly was a breach of fiduciary duty because those duties were the sole basis of the complaint.
- rosser 8y agoPrecisely because eBay, knowing they were buying into a frugal-first operation like Craigslist, specifically structured the deal such that it was owed this duty. That Craig and Jim took the money under those terms is on them, as is their failure to honor the terms of the contractual duty they owed eBay for its minority stake, specifically including all the ways they tried to weasel out of the deal — for which eBay did have a legitimate cause. From what I've read, if eBay had not bought that stake under those specific terms, there wouldn't have been a case here. (Or at least not this case.) Again, IANAL, but I think that makes it more of a contractual duty case. A dog wearing a bill and wings, with a collar that quacks, is apparently a duck — if your lawyer is good enough…