- Last Active
Cadleigh said:Let me rephrase my question using an analogy.
Half a dozen friends buy 100 acres of land, each buying a parcel. They agree that if anyone offers to buy any of the land, all will get an equal chance to participate, either as a buyer or as a seller.
A stranger comes along along and says they need 70 acres - no more, no less - to build a palace. Five of the buyers agree to sell the land that the stranger needs, concealing the sale from the remaining landowner. They tell the stranger that there is no agreement in place to enforce collective action.
The landowner who has lost out goes to see the local magistrate. They say ‘I should have been given a chance to sell my land to the stranger. I want justice.’
What should the magistrate do? Order the stranger - who claims he was told there was no agreement in place - to buy land that he doesn’t need now he has the 70 acres he wanted to build his palace? Surely that would be a breach of natural justice. The offenders were the other landowners, not the stranger.
Or should the magistrate order the offenders to buy back 18.27 acres of the land they sold to the stranger, so the stranger can buy that much land from the landowner who has been shafted? That would be more just, surely, although if I were the stranger I’d be really upset that I would have to move my palace.
Does that help?
You forgot to factor in the fact that the stranger was complicit in concealing the purchase, on his own admission in a recorded public meeting,which is widely available for anyone to view.