[Sussex] Tie becomes unbound

[Mark Harrison]

I would have thought that the client claiming to have been defrauded would
need to prove that wearing suits to client meetings was, per se, evidence
that suits were part of corporate dress.

The obvious defence would be for the consultancy to claim that standard
dress code was "suits for client meetings, casual otherwise".

I, having spent most of my professional life working for big consultancies,
would be happy to appear as an expert witness, and support the view that
"suits for client meetings, casual otherwise" was standard working practice
in my industry :-)

Mark


----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Teale" <Geoff.Teale at claybrook.co.uk>
To: <sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Sussex] Tie becomes unbound


> If the consultant would not normally freely choose to wear a suit, then
> wearing one for sales purposes could be deamed as a misrepresentation of
the
> product/services on offer. If the consultancy firm considers smart dress a
> contractual requirement of their employees then this misrepresentation is
> the responsibility of the firm.  Technically this is fraud.