Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on August 18, 2003 07:41 PM
The thing that SCO has ignored is this:
Most countries have laws that allow and govern how business is conducted.
One basic understanding of all these laws (if they exist and you have to check out the laws in the country you reside in, or do business in),<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yep, one most important basic understanding that has to exist with business, in order to do business, is that once there is a meeting of the minds between an agent of a principle and the innocent 3rd party customer over the terms and conditions of a deal, and the deal is consumated (based on these understandings)..., then, unless the deal says otherwise, the principle cannot go back to the innocent 3rd party and change the terms and conditions of the deal or charge them again "any kind of newly invented price", thus altering the deal... , the principle is restriced by laws so that they cannot after the fact go back and try to harm the innocent 3rd party customer. If businesses or principles were able to go back and reinvent the terms of a deal after the deal has been made then the economy would collapse as the innocent 3rd party customer would then fear to buy anything, as if they did buy something, then they could be charged again any newly invented price for the product AND would have to pay! Trade could not exist without the respect for the basic laws of business (and the rule of law).
So, thru the centuries, business laws in most counrtries, who allow business transactions to exist, have matured to state that agents of a principle that negotiate a deal for the principle wth the principle's apparent or ostensible authority,or actual authority (or by acquienscense the principle simply allows the deal to go thru as arranged by the agent), then on a case by case basis the judge has to establish the relationships between the parties (mostly the principle agent relationship facts need to be evident and proved), then the judge rules as to if the agent acted in such a way to at least have the principle's apparent or ostensible authority to make the deal "as seen and understood by the innocent 3rd party customer and the facts"! If the Judge sees that indeed a principle has allowed the principle's agents (as seen by the public) to do business for the principle, then the innocent 3rd party customer goes freely on their way with their product still having been acquired fairly, as it was before, and so the innocent 3rd party cannot be harmed by the principle after a deal has been legally made. If consumer protection laws like this do not exist in a country, then the acts of doing business can not happen, as no customer wants to agree to pay something one day and then have the seller (or principle and/or a principle's agents) come back the next day and say that they now owe 5 times (or whatever amount) for the use of the product that was bought the day before. The most basic rule of business, in order for business to survive as an institution, is that a deal is a deal is a deal...! A business or a business's agents cannot go back and change a deal once it is fairly and legally made.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Business is universal - not just a US invention.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 18, 2003 07:41 PMMost countries have laws that allow and govern how business is conducted.
One basic understanding of all these laws (if they exist and you have to check out the laws in the country you reside in, or do business in),<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yep, one most important basic understanding that has to exist with business, in order to do business, is that once there is a meeting of the minds between an agent of a principle and the innocent 3rd party customer over the terms and conditions of a deal, and the deal is consumated (based on these understandings)..., then, unless the deal says otherwise, the principle cannot go back to the innocent 3rd party and change the terms and conditions of the deal or charge them again "any kind of newly invented price", thus altering the deal... , the principle is restriced by laws so that they cannot after the fact go back and try to harm the innocent 3rd party customer. If businesses or principles were able to go back and reinvent the terms of a deal after the deal has been made then the economy would collapse as the innocent 3rd party customer would then fear to buy anything, as if they did buy something, then they could be charged again any newly invented price for the product AND would have to pay! Trade could not exist without the respect for the basic laws of business (and the rule of law).
So, thru the centuries, business laws in most counrtries, who allow business transactions to exist, have matured to state that agents of a principle that negotiate a deal for the principle wth the principle's apparent or ostensible authority,or actual authority (or by acquienscense the principle simply allows the deal to go thru as arranged by the agent), then on a case by case basis the judge has to establish the relationships between the parties (mostly the principle agent relationship facts need to be evident and proved), then the judge rules as to if the agent acted in such a way to at least have the principle's apparent or ostensible authority to make the deal "as seen and understood by the innocent 3rd party customer and the facts"! If the Judge sees that indeed a principle has allowed the principle's agents (as seen by the public) to do business for the principle, then the innocent 3rd party customer goes freely on their way with their product still having been acquired fairly, as it was before, and so the innocent 3rd party cannot be harmed by the principle after a deal has been legally made. If consumer protection laws like this do not exist in a country, then the acts of doing business can not happen, as no customer wants to agree to pay something one day and then have the seller (or principle and/or a principle's agents) come back the next day and say that they now owe 5 times (or whatever amount) for the use of the product that was bought the day before. The most basic rule of business, in order for business to survive as an institution, is that a deal is a deal is a deal...! A business or a business's agents cannot go back and change a deal once it is fairly and legally made.
#