Comment: Telling

(See in situ)


"Since when does the agent tell the principals what its powers are?"

The above argument is similar to what the Supreme Court argued re jury nullification. They said that judges are not required to tell juries their rights because the jury (and the public) are the employer (principals), and the judge is the employee (agent), and employees don't have to tell employers what they can do.

Obviously, this is a flawed argument, as judges are failing to do their jobs in that case. If you were to say that a lawyer (agent) is not obligated to give good advice to his client (principal), you'd have an obvious problem.

Of course agents should tell their principals EVERYTHING of interest to them under the scope of their duties. "Tell" being the operative word. What the agent is forbidden to do, is to FORCE the principal to DO anything or take the advice.

If bad advice is given, the advisors should be fired!

What do you think?