From one perspective, if 40% is not material, then I would be
surprised; although I can see where 29% looks less material than 40%.

      If the "agent" of the corporation was authorized to extend an offer
at $0.07 and the "agent" exceeded that authorization and extended an offer
at $0.05, then the question is who suffers the loss of the $0.02.  I
suspect the "agent" suffers the loss rather than either the corporation or
the new hire.  However, the corporation might suffer the cash flow
obligation as a surety of the "agent" with respect to the suing new hire.

      The $0.02 easily might not be material if the percentage calculation
uses the entire new hire package as the denominator, but I suspect a
several segment such as a hiring bonus would be a more likely denominator.

Michael

Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
Finance, Banking, & Law Department        Editor, Journal of Legal
Economics
College of Business Administration        (402) 554 - 2014 voice fax (402)
554 - 3825
Roskens Hall 502                    www.AAEFE.org
University of Nebraska at Omaha           www.JournalOfLegalEconomics.com
Omaha  NE  68182
[log in to unmask]
(402) 554 - 2823 voice  fax (402) 554 - 2680
http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm