3 ms·

> GM doesn't have to honour every promise a sales rep makes, even if that rep is nominally entitled to enter into contracts for the company - otherwise someone

by tomrod 3y ago

> GM doesn't have to honour every promise a sales rep makes, even if that rep is nominally entitled to enter into contracts for the company - otherwise someone might agree to sell their whole stock to an accomplice for $1 The law doesn't protect a company in the world you laid out, internal compliance and controls do. A sales rep in a company with bad controls may well do exactly what you laid out.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
Are you sure consideration[1] and unconscionability[2] don't form the basis for that type of legal protection? 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration 2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability
- jowea 3y ago
  I found this article which indicates this legal protection relates to the doctrine of unilateral mistake: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol75/iss2/9/ https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol75/iss2/9/
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    Thank you. It seemed like there would be some kind of legal principle at play.
dmurray 3y ago
This is nonsense. Can you imagine the chaos of a world where what you said is even close to true? I'm a cashier at Walmart. One day I sell to you for $100 - not just everything in the store, but the building, the local distribution centre and even the corporate headquarters. And in your view - Walmart has no legal recourse against me or against you? They should just peacefully vacate the buildings and hand over the keys? Their remedy to this is to discipline me according to their internal controls - maybe put me on a PIP and remind me that the company handbook forbids these deals? No, this just isn't a deal that can happen. It's not about reasonableness, consideration or unconscionability - the deal is void even if the buyer agreed to pay $100 million. It's not about good faith on the buyer's side - it's void even if you thought I was the VP of Real Estate. I can't sell Walmart's property at any price, even though I'm otherwise empowered to do business on behalf of the company.

by tomrod 3y ago

kelseyfrog 3y ago

Are you sure consideration[1] and unconscionability[2] don't form the basis for that type of legal protection? 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration 2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability

jowea 3y ago
I found this article which indicates this legal protection relates to the doctrine of unilateral mistake: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol75/iss2/9/ https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol75/iss2/9/
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  Thank you. It seemed like there would be some kind of legal principle at play.

dmurray 3y ago

This is nonsense. Can you imagine the chaos of a world where what you said is even close to true? I'm a cashier at Walmart. One day I sell to you for $100 - not just everything in the store, but the building, the local distribution centre and even the corporate headquarters. And in your view - Walmart has no legal recourse against me or against you? They should just peacefully vacate the buildings and hand over the keys? Their remedy to this is to discipline me according to their internal controls - maybe put me on a PIP and remind me that the company handbook forbids these deals? No, this just isn't a deal that can happen. It's not about reasonableness, consideration or unconscionability - the deal is void even if the buyer agreed to pay $100 million. It's not about good faith on the buyer's side - it's void even if you thought I was the VP of Real Estate. I can't sell Walmart's property at any price, even though I'm otherwise empowered to do business on behalf of the company.