4 ms·
The way I am currently understanding it, is that I think it's a distinction about the stage of the deal he's in. There would usually be a due diligence phase d
by mikkergp 4y ago
The way I am currently understanding it, is that I think it's a distinction about the stage of the deal he's in. There would usually be a due diligence phase during negotiations, and then after due diligence they would sign a merger agreement that the purchase was good to go. He could decline due diligence but still be in that prior phase, but they're not in that prior phase. They're in the signed contract phase.
I think it's like, you can take a car to a mechanic before you sign a contract to buy a car, or you could write into the contract that you agree x, y and z thing are working in the car and take it to a mechanic afterwards, but he signed the agreement, without taking it to a mechanic and without writing any contingencies into the purchase agreement.
- elif 4y agoIn your analogy, I believe lemon laws would apply. You can't just lie about what you're selling and get away with it.
- mikkergp 4y agoRight and I think that is sort of a thing, but it’s an extremely high bar, like I think he would have to prove was lying about actual business financials, not just business metrics.