6 ms·

> By the author's logic, they would expire in October. That's... not the logic stated in the article. In both cases you get the expiration date in the contrac

> By the author's logic, they would expire in October. That's... not the logic stated in the article. In both cases you get the expiration date in the contract.† If you make a false representation to someone, and they rely on that, which is exactly what happened here, you can be liable for the damage to them, which is also exactly what happened here. If you make a false representation to someone, and nothing bad happens, and they find proof that you made a mistake, then... you adjust what you're saying, and there are no other consequences. † Kummeth contended that, had he been aware of the options' actual expiration date, he would have exercised them, and this was obviously true. He was awarded an amount based on their value around the time of expiration specified in the contract, not their value at the time he tried to exercise them.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
IMO, Matt does a pretty bad job of illustrating that point. It seems like he is construing this ruling as a an example of the computer superseding the contract. >What, the piece of paper that I skimmed and signed and stuck in a drawer is the deal, and not the computer screen that I look at every day? Seems implausible. The contract is just a piece of paper; the computer is real life. >The stock administration platform is real life; the contract is just a contract. Maybe there are 2 levels are sarcasm and he is actually saying the paper contract drives the ruling (which it did), but I dont see it.
- jmholla 2y ago
  > IMO, Matt does a pretty bad job of illustrating that point. It seems like he is construing this ruling as a an example of the computer superseding the contract. Thank you. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. It wasn't the computer. It was execution of the contract and which side of the contract performed poorly in that execution. It's not as reductive as that's what the computer said.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

IMO, Matt does a pretty bad job of illustrating that point. It seems like he is construing this ruling as a an example of the computer superseding the contract. >What, the piece of paper that I skimmed and signed and stuck in a drawer is the deal, and not the computer screen that I look at every day? Seems implausible. The contract is just a piece of paper; the computer is real life. >The stock administration platform is real life; the contract is just a contract. Maybe there are 2 levels are sarcasm and he is actually saying the paper contract drives the ruling (which it did), but I dont see it.

jmholla 2y ago
> IMO, Matt does a pretty bad job of illustrating that point. It seems like he is construing this ruling as a an example of the computer superseding the contract. Thank you. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. It wasn't the computer. It was execution of the contract and which side of the contract performed poorly in that execution. It's not as reductive as that's what the computer said.