m*****e
发帖数: 10963 | 1 于新浪网联席主席吴征的公开资料汇编
文章来源: 2234 于 2001-12-6 12:29:00:
一、新浪网关于吴征的简介二、阳光卫视关于吴征的简介三、阳光四通就杨澜吴征被造
谣中伤一事发布通告四、《解放日报》报道：就吴征"克莱登事件"阳光四通愤而反击五
、美国远程教育网络大学巴灵顿大学关于不授予博士学位的答复六、1993年一些密苏里
州的中国留学生控告吴征及其雇主在推销人寿保险时欺诈七、吴征在密苏里州创建的四
所公司的纪录（均在短期内被州政府解散）
一、新浪网关于吴征的简介
http://tech.sina.com.cn/65605.shtml
吴征简介
http://www.sina.com.cn
2001年04月30日 18:51 新浪科技
吴征现任阳光文化网络电视控股有限公司(香港联交所上市公司)执行主席兼集团行政总
裁，1986年毕业于法国萨伏大学法语系，1989年获美国卡尔文-斯多克顿学院工商管理
学士学位，1993年和1996年分别获华盛顿大学硕士学位和美国巴灵顿大学博士学位，后
于复旦大学国际政治关系学院获第二个博士学位。同时受聘为北大、清华和上海大学客
座教授、希望工程和北大经济研究中心高级顾问。 1998年6月至1999年2月间曾出任香
港亚洲电视营运总裁，此外还是从事媒体投资和战略咨询业务的博纳投资咨询公司的主
席。
吴征为美国国家电视科学艺术学院国际董事会董事，及该会全球互动电视研究与发展委
员会主席、美国广播电视博物馆国际董事、美国广播电视科学艺术基金会董事。1998年
被香港旅游协会授予“香港亲善大使”称号，1998年10月被授于由“香港-澳门杰出人
士评选委员会”颁发的“杰出传媒之星”奖。著有《中国的大国地位与国际传播战略》
和《告别荒漠：新媒体与精神生态的重建》等书。
二、阳光卫视关于吴征的简介
http://www.chinasuntv.com/gb/super.htm
吴征博士
吴征博士，现年叁十四岁，于二零零零年七月加入董事会为执行董事及于八月获委任为
执行主席。彼于二零零一年二月成为集团的执行总裁。彼在美国巴灵顿大学取得博士学
位，并在美国华盛顿大学取得硕士学位。彼亦持有工商管理-财务学之理学士学位及法
国文学深造研究文凭。彼已经在复旦大学获得第二个博士毕业文凭，现为北京大学、清
华大学及上海大学客席教授。彼于一九九八年六月至一九九九年二月期间曾任香港亚洲
电视有限公司（"亚洲电视"）营运总裁。在亚洲电视任职期间，吴博士大大改善了亚洲
电视在收视率及财政状况之表现。彼现为美国国家科学艺术学院之互动电视国际论坛主
席。吴博士亦为美国电视科学艺术学院国际理事会成员。彼负责本集团之策略性筹划及
业务方针。
三、阳光四通就杨澜吴征被造谣中伤一事发布通告
http://www.sina.com.cn
2001年11月30日 14:57 新浪科技
今天，阳光四通媒体(集团)有限公司就有人造谣中伤杨澜吴征一事给新浪网发来通告，
通告全文如下：
阳光四通媒体(集团)有限公司通告
亲爱的各界朋友，
本集团在此严正谴责有人刻意损害公司利益之不正当行为。最近，我们发现有人在有组
织地利用造谣、诬陷的方式对本集团副主席及“阳光文化”主席杨澜女士及本集团首席
执行官、“新浪网”联席主席吴征先生进行恶毒的人身攻击，并主动地将信息第一时间
传递到新浪网民与阳光文化客户手中。有别于一般的造谣中伤，此次事件是有组织地进
行的，这一点从事件发生的时间顺序可见一斑：
十一月十五日至二十日左右：香港各主要媒体均以传真方式收到匿名信，后来这些媒体
调查后发现信的内容与事实完全不符，故主动向我方通报。
十一月二十二日左右：内地一部分主要媒体收到同样的匿名信。
十一月二十三至二十五日：有人向美国和国内的一些主要网站的BBS聊天室发去大同小
异的匿名信。
十一月二十六日：发信之人终于露出马脚，因为他们给阳光卫视的主要广告客户以传真
形式发了该匿名信。
十一月二十七日：“新浪网”及“阳光文化”的主要合作伙伴亦收到同一匿名信。
而最终于十一月二十九日，发信之人开始采用电子邮件传播的方式，许多新浪网及“
163.net”之用户亦收到匿名电子邮件，在继续造谣之余并号召新浪网民“睁大眼睛”
等等，再次显露其其他用意。
这些匿名信充斥着可笑的谎言及歪曲的事实，稍有常识之人均不齿于此卑鄙之行为，谎
言在利用了现代化的互联网传播手段后亦改变不了其谎言之本质。自古以来，邪终不压
正，我们已觉得太无聊，故不愿在此逐条予以反驳。我们只是蔑视这种连名都不敢署的
懦夫行为，并相信时间会公正地让这次事件的作者自食其果。
在此，“阳光四通”集团公司严正声明，公司将对此次事件进行彻底调查，并将保留在
全球范围内以法律手段追溯这次事件始作俑者之权利。公司并呼吁社会各界人士提供协
助调查本事件之各种信息，一经核实将予以重奖。您的调查信息请发至police@vip.
sina.com。
“阳光四通”及其投资的“新浪”与“阳光”致力于向全球传播中华文化，并已在全球
华人社区获得良好声誉。在这WTO即将来临之机，希望与大家一起建立健康的社会心态
及公平的商业竞争环境，并鄙视“内战内行，外战外行”的行为。最后，请允许我们向
所有支持、信赖我们的客户表示衷心感谢，“沧海横流，方显出英雄本色”，我们将进
一步地为客户提供更好服务，并期望与你们携手共创和谐、美好之未来。
阳光四通媒体(集团)有限公司
2001年11月30日
四、《解放日报》报道：就吴征"克莱登事件"阳光四通愤而反击 http://www.jfdaily.com.cn/epublish/gb/paper39/925/class003900012/hwz499579.htm
近日来，有关阳光四通首席执行官吴征炮制博士学历的流言在互联网上迅速传播，昨天
，阳光四通终于忍无可忍，发表了长篇通告予以指责。吴征本人也对本报记者表示，这
些流言“太无聊了。” 吴征：流言“太无聊” 记者昨天拨通了阳光卫视香港总部的电
话，吴征正在香港主持一个持续数日的会议。他表示无暇对这些流言蜚语作出太多的回
应，只是通过秘书简单地表达了他的看法，称这些网上的信息全是“谣言中伤”，简直
“太无聊了”。
近日，整个阳光卫视总部也笼罩在某种阴影下，员工们因为这样的谣言而心情灰暗。阳
光文化的新闻负责人刘小姐也向记者表达了她个人的不快。而且由于这些流言通过电子
邮件广泛分发给新浪的网民和阳光卫视的广告客户，事实上已经给阳光四通及其投资人
造成了一定程度的伤害。在这样的情况下，阳光四通愤而反击，“严正谴责”这种“不
正当行为”。声明中将这些流言的散布定性为“有组织的造谣诬蔑”，是对阳光卫视创
始人吴征、杨澜夫妇“恶毒的人身攻击”。声明中称，这些流言“充斥着可笑的谎言及
歪曲的事实，稍有常识之人均不齿于此卑鄙之行为，谎言在利用了现代化的互联网传播
手段后亦改变不了其谎言之本质。”阳光四通把躲在暗处的中伤者称为“懦夫”，表示
不屑对其文中的内容予以逐条反驳，只是“相信时间会公正地让这次事件的作者自食其
果”。
聚焦两点造谣中伤
正如阳光四通在通告中所言，对吴征及其妻子杨澜的谣言中伤从11月中旬开始就在网上
渐渐散布开来，其内容先是聚焦在两点上。第一是质疑吴征一长串荣耀的学历，尤其是
他“美国巴林顿大学”的博士头衔。传言者认为巴林顿大学属于函授性质的远程教育学
院，只需一年多时间便可完成所有学业，其学位并不被美国教育部认可，而且该校根本
不设博士学位。基于此，一些传言将吴征同小说《围城》里收买“克莱登大学”博士文
凭的方鸿渐相提并论，围绕这个莫须有的“污点”大做文章。第二则是针对杨澜在美国
的进修和求职经历。文中嘲讽杨澜作为一名中国人，绝不可能被美国三大主流电视网相
中。杨澜在美的辉煌经历很大程度上是由她自己编造，用来迷惑国内媒体的。文章一开
头就亮出了作者的观点，“杨澜恐怕是在骗术上最有智慧的女人了”，却又不能提供任
何确凿的证据。作者的判断只是基于“到了美国，一切都要从头做起”，而由此推理，
以三大电视网严格的录取标准，不可能主动写信邀聘杨澜，杨澜更不可能拒绝这样的荣
耀。后来，网上的流言越来越离谱，把这对明星夫妻包装成了彻头彻尾的骗子。文中捏
造吴征在美从事人寿保险代理业务时，经常欺诈和误导顾客。作者将吴征在法国的求学
奋斗，在美创建博纳投资咨询公司，出任亚洲电视运营总裁并扭亏为盈，缔造阳光卫视
的事实全部作了歪曲，认为这都是吴征谎言历史的一部分。更有甚者，文中称杨澜是在
毕业后工作无着的情况下，才认识了“当时在密苏里州任传销员”的吴征。
流言攻击“有组织”的
阳光四通之所以认为这样的大规模攻击是“有组织”的，理由是流言传播的过程相当缜
密。 11月15日至20日左右，中国香港各主要媒体均以传真方式收到包含以上内容的匿
名信。22日左右，内地一部分主要媒体收到同样的匿名信。23日至25日，有人向美国和
国内的一些主要网站的BBS聊天室发去匿名信。26日，匿名信被以传真的方式发向阳光
卫视的主要广告客户。 27日，“新浪网”及“阳光文化”的主要合作伙伴亦收到同一
匿名信。29日，发信之人开始采用电子邮件传播的方式，许多新浪网及“163．net”用
户亦收到匿名电子邮件，在继续造谣之余并号召新浪网民“睁大眼睛”等等。据悉，阳
光四通已通过其律师开始进行彻底调查，并表示将在全球范围内追查匿名信的始作俑者
。阳光四通希望通过本报，呼吁各界人士提供有助调查该事件的各种信息，调查信息可
发至police＠vip．sina．com。
本报记者潘田
五、美国远程教育网络大学巴灵顿大学关于不授予博士学位的答复
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:31:01 -0500
From: barrington
Dear Sir or Madam, I'm sorry, but we do not offer Ph.D or Doctorate programs
.
Thank you,
Ani Lamberti
Barrington University
Administrative Offices
a*[email protected]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a graduate student of Some Univeristy in Alaska, I will be
graduating next May and will start working from June.
I am interested in your distance learning program. I want to get a >doctor'
s degree while I work.
So would you please tell me what kind of doctoral programs you might have?
Thank you very much.
Date: Fri Nov 30 11:42:16 2001
From: barrington
Dear Sir or Madam,
I'm sorry, but we do not offer a Ph.D program. We go up to the Masters level
. Ani Lamberti Barrington University Administrative Offices ani@barrington.
edu
To Whom It May Concern, > >I'd like to know if Barrington University offers
Ph.D >degrees in any of your programs.
六、1993年一些密苏里州的中国留学生控告吴征及其雇主在推销人寿保险时欺诈
七、吴征在密苏里州创建的四所公司的纪录（均在短期内被州政府解散）
MISSOURI SECRETARY OF STATE,
CORPORATE RECORD Name: CHINA TV SHOPPING NETWORK DELIVERY SYSTEM, INC.
Type of Corporation: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION
Status: ADMINISTRATIVELY DISSOLVED
Status Comment: FAILURE TO FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT
Standing Status: NOT IN GOOD STANDING
Status Date: 02/03/1995
Date of Incorporation/Qualification: 07/14/1994
Filing Date: 07/14/1994
Duration: PERPETUAL
State of Incorporation: MISSOURI
Registered Agent: BRUNO Z. WU
Registered Office: 8155 ROCKLEDGE TRAIL ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63123
Tax Year:
Fiscal Year Begin: 07/14
Fiscal Year End: 07/13
Corporation Number: 00398534
History: FRANCHISE DATE STATUS TAX
---- ------ ---------
07/14/1994 ACTIVE
MISSOURI SECRETARY OF STATE,
CORPORATE RECORD Name: CHINA STOCK AND COMMODITY MARKET INSIGHT, INC.
Type of Corporation: CLOSE CORPORATION
Status: ADMINISTRATIVELY DISSOLVED
Status Comment: FAILURE TO FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT
Standing Status: NOT IN GOOD STANDING
Status Date: 09/15/1994
Date of Incorporation/Qualification: 02/14/1994
Filing Date: 02/14/1994
Duration: PERPETUAL
State of Incorporation: MISSOURI
Registered Agent: BRUNO Z. WU
Registered Office: 8155 ROCKLEDGE TRAIL ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63123
Tax Year:
Fiscal Year Begin: 02/14
Fiscal Year End: 02/13
Corporation Number: CC0391903
History: FRANCHISE DATE STATUS TAX
---- ------ ---------
02/14/1994 ACTIVE
MISSOURI SECRETARY OF STATE,
CORPORATE RECORD Name: CHINA INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP MEDIA AGENCY, INC.
Type of Corporation: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION
Status: ADMINISTRATIVELY DISSOLVED
Status Comment: FAILURE TO FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT
Standing Status: NOT IN GOOD STANDING
Status Date: 09/18/1995
Date of Incorporation/Qualification: 02/07/1994
Filing Date: 02/07/1994
Duration: PERPETUAL
State of Incorporation: MISSOURI
Registered Agent: BRUNO Z. WU
Registered Office: 8155 ROCKLEDGE TRAIL ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63123
Annual Report:
Last Report Filed: 05/06/1994
Prior Names: CHINA INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP ADVERTISING AGENCY, INC.
Tax Year:
Fiscal Year Begin: 02/07
Fiscal Year End: 02/06
Franchise Tax: No
Corporation Number: 00391647
History: FRANCHISE DATE STATUS TAX
---- ------ ---------
05/06/1994 ACTIVE No
ALL REQUIRED REPORTS FILED
02/07/1994 ACTIVE
NEW CORPORATION INCORPORATED WITHIN LAST 12 MONTHS
MISSOURI SECRETARY OF STATE, CORPORATE RECORD
Name: BRUNO WU AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Type of Corporation: CLOSE CORPORATION
Status: ADMINISTRATIVELY DISSOLVED
Status Comment: FAILURE TO FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT
Standing Status: NOT IN GOOD STANDING
Status Date: 08/31/1995
Date of Incorporation/Qualification: 01/14/1994
Filing Date: 01/14/1994
Duration: PERPETUAL
State of Incorporation: MISSOURI
Registered Agent: BRUNO Z. WU
Registered Office: 8155 ROCKLEDGE TRAIL ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63123
Annual Report:
Last Report Filed: 04/28/1994
Tax Year:
Fiscal Year Begin: 01/14
Fiscal Year End: 01/13
Franchise Tax: No
Corporation Number: CC0390738
History: FRANCHISE
DATE STATUS TAX | m*****e
发帖数: 10963 | 2 六、1993年一些密苏里州的中国留学生控告吴征及其雇主在推销人寿保险时欺诈
（控告吴征的案件撤诉。控告保险公司的案件法庭以公司不能为吴征的行
为负责为由驳回。下面是上诉法庭驳回原告上诉的部分纪录）
Document 1 of 3.
DONG LI, et al., Appellants, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Respondent.
No. ED74540
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE
998 S.W.2d 828; 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 1064
August 10, 1999, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the Circuit Court of the
City of St. Louis. Honorable Patricia Cohen.
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.
COUNSEL: Alan G. Kimbrell, St. Louis, MO, for appellants.
Ann E. Buckley, St. Louis, MO,for respondent.
JUDGES: Robert E. Crist, Senior Judge. James A. Pudlowski, P
.J., and Clifford H. Ahrens: Concur.
OPINION BY: ROBERT E. CRIST
OPINION: [*828] Dong Li and his wife Xiao Mei Zhou,
appeal from the judgment entered after a jury returned a
verdict for defendant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (
MetLife), on their claim for fraud in the sale of life
insurance policies. We affirm.
From 1991 through 1993, MetLife employed Bruno Wu to sell
life insurance policies. In 1991 and 1992, Dong Li, Xiao
MeiZhou, and several other persons purchased "L95" life
insurance policies from MetLife through Wu. In the spring
of 1993, certain purchasers complained to MetLife regarding
their insurance purchases from Wu. In a letter to MetLife's
CEO, they asserted that Wu had not followed the appropriate
sale procedures established by Metlife, and that Wu
misrepresented important aspects of the "L95" policy. On May
27, 1993, Dong Li, on behalf of certain purchasers, filed a
Consumer Complaint Report with the Missouri Department [**2
] of Insurance. As part of its response to this complaint,
MetLife included a copy of a letter by Wu in which he
discussed the accusations that he misrepresentedthe policies
to the policy holders. Dong Li, Xiao Mei Zhou, and several
other named plaintiffs brought an action [*829] against
MetLife and Wu, alleging fraud in the sales of the policies.
The petition asserts that Wu made the following false
representations: (1) the company guaranteed that no more
premiums would be charged after being paid for seven years;
(2) after paying premiums for one year, dividends could be
collected on the policies; (3) the cash value of a policy
could be borrowed at an interest rate of one percent; and (4
) the return rate on the "investment would be in two-digit
numbers." After dismissing Wu from the lawsuit, the
plaintiffs filed a third amended petition with three counts.
The plaintiffs again alleged fraud in the sales of the
policies in the first count. In the second count, certain
plaintiffs alleged libel based on Wu's letter that MetLife
sent to the Department of Insurance. Dong Li and Xiao Mei
Zhou alleged in the third count that MetLife issued a policy
on the life of their child, and that [**3] they did not
sign or authorize the application for this policy. MetLife
filed a motion for summary judgment on the libel count,
asserting that a response to an inquiry made by the
Department of Insurance, in the course of an investigation,
was absolutely privileged. The trial court granted Metlife's
motion. The court stated there was no just reason for delay
and that the summary judgment entered on the libel claim was
final for purposes of appeal. This court affirmed the trial
court's judgment because the statements contained in Wu's
letter were relevant to the Department of Insurance
investigation and therefore the alleged defamatory statements
were absolutely privileged. Li v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co
., 955 S.W.2d 799, 804 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). Prior to trial,
Dong Li and Xiao Mei Zhou dismissed their third count
regarding their child's policy. As for the fraud count,
certain plaintiffs dismissed their actions without prejudice
and others dismissed with prejudice. The present case
proceeded to trial on Dong Li's and Xiao Mei Zhou's claim of
fraud in the sales of the policies. The jury returned a
verdict for MetLife. Dong Li and Xiao Mei Zhou (hereafter [*
*4] plaintiffs) appeal, raising two points. To establish
fraud, a plaintiff must prove nine elements: 1)a
representation; 2) its falsity; 3) its materiality; 4) the
speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of the truth
; 5) the speaker's intent that it should be acted upon;6)
the representee's ignorance of its falsity; 7) the
representee's reliance on its truth; 8) the representee's
right to rely thereon; and 9) the representee's consequent
and proximate injury. Cabinet Distributors, Inc. v. Redmond,
965 S.W.2d 309, 312 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998). Under the theory
of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for damages
attributable to the misconduct of an employee or agent
acting within the course and scope of the employment or
agency. McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822, 825 (Mo. banc
1995). In their first point on appeal, plaintiffs argue that
the trial court erred in giving the converse instruction
that was offered by MetLife and ????ted to the jury. The
following verdict director was offered by plaintiffs and
????ted to the jury:
Your verdict must be for plaintiffs if you believe: First,
Bruno Wu was operating within the [**5] course and scope of
his employment by defendant at the time of representations,
if any, made by him to the plaintiffs, and,Second, Bruno Wu
either represented to plaintiffs that the rate of return on
premiums paid on L-95 policies was in two digit numbers, or
represented to plaintiffs that the time period required to
pay off an L-95 policy was seven years, or represented to
plaintiffs the interest rate on loans by defendant to
policy holders in amounts up to the amount of premiums paid
was one percent, and Third, the representation was false,
and [*830] Fourth, the defendant [MetLife] knew that it was
false, and Fifth, the representation was material to the
purchase by plaintiffs of L-95 policies, and Sixth,
plaintiffs relied on the representation in the making of the
purchases, and in so relying plaintiffs used that degree of
care that would have been reasonable in plaintiffs'
situation, and Seventh, as a direct result of such
representation the plaintiffs were damaged. MetLife objected
to this instruction, arguing that the fourth paragraph
should refer to Bruno Wu rather than MetLife. The trial
court overruled this objection.
The following converse [**6] instruction was offered by
MetLife and ????ted to the jury: Your verdict must be for
defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company unless
you believe that Bruno Wu made one or more of the
representations ????ted in Instruction Number 7 and that
such representations were false and Bruno Wu knew they were
false, and that in making such representations, Bruno Wu
was acting in the course and scope of his employment with
defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and that as
a direct result of such representations the plaintiffs were
damaged. Plaintiffs objected to the portion of this
instruction that states "Bruno Wu knew they were false,"
arguing that the instruction should refer to Metlife's
knowledge that the representations were false. The trial
court overruled this objection. In ruling on plaintiffs'
motion for a new trial, the court found that the converse
instruction was proper and that part of plaintiffs' verdict
director should have been that Bruno Wu knew his
representations were false. The issue is whether under
the circumstances presented here, the jury should have been
instructed as to MetLife's or Wu's knowledge of the falsity
of the representation. [**7]
Plaintiffs rely on the court's ruling in Essex v. Getty Oil
Co., 661 S.W.2d 544 (Mo. App. 1983), for their contention
that the jury should have been instructed as to MetLife's
knowledge of the falsity of the representation. In Essex,
the plaintiffs brought two actions against Skelly Oil Co. (
Skelly) for fraudulent misrepresentation and unfair
competition. Essex, 661 S.W.2d at 547. The plaintiffs'
claims arose from agreements where the plaintiffs leased
service stations from Skelly. Id. Two "territorial
representatives" told the plaintiff, Arlo Essex, that a
cancellation clause in the lease, that gave either party
theoption to cancel the lease on thirty days notice, was
merely a formality and if he "ran a good operation" he
could remain in the location until he decided to retire. Id.
at 547-48. According to one of the territorial
representatives,he and others were instructed at the Skelly
training program to overcome resistance prospective lessees
might express about the cancellation clause by saying that
the clause would not be used to terminate a lease unless
good cause by reason of unsatisfactory performance of the
lessee [**8] gave actual grounds to seek another station
operator. Id. at 548. Skelly terminated the plaintiffs'
lease because it wanted to convert the station into a self-
service operation under the name of a Skelly subsidiary. Id.
Skellynever charged that the plaintiffs conducted an
unsatisfactory operation. Id. The jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiffs but the trial court entered judgment
notwithstanding the verdict for Skelly and, in the
alternative, ordered a new trial. Id. at 547. In an argument
to support the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, Skelly
contended that there was insufficient proof that their two
"territorial representatives" knew the statements were false
. Id. at 549. In rejecting Skelly's argument, the court held
that the argument proceeded "on the false assumption that
Skelly may escape liability if the person who made the
communication has been insulated from guilty knowledge." Id.
at 550. The court [*831] then stated that a "recovery can
be had for false representations made to another with the
intent they be communicated to a third person for the
purpose of defrauding the third person. The [**9] fact that
the person used as an agent to convey the representation is
innocent does not relieve the party charged with fraud." Id.
at 550-51. The court held that the circumstances of the
training sessions and the subsequent conduct of Skelly,
replacing one of the plaintiffs with a Skelly subsidiary,
constituted sufficient facts to present the issue to the
jury. Id. at 551. Essex is distinguishable from the present
case. In Essex, "territorial representatives" were
instructed to inform prospective lessees that the lease
would be terminated only for good cause, contrary to the
language of the cancellationclause. Id. at 548. Here, there
is no evidence that MetLife directed or intended for Wu to
make fraudulent representations regarding the "L95" policy.
Furthermore, we disagree with plaintiffs' contention that it
is fair to "presume" that any representations Wu made about
the policy were based on the training MetLife provided
regarding the policy. The Missouri Supreme Court similarly
distinguished Essex in Emerick v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co
., 756 S.W.2d 513 (Mo. banc 1988). In Emerick, the [**10]
plaintiff signed an agreement to take over the "Kansas City
agency," of the defendant, Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co.
(Mutual), after discussions with Mr. Mascotte, a Vice
President of Mutual. Emerick, 756 S.W.2d at 515-16. Problems
arose between the parties regarding the payment of certain
costs. Id. at 516-17. Another Vice President of Mutual
subsequently informed the plaintiff of the "company's
decision" that he should resign or be terminated if he
refused. Id. at 517. The plaintiff brought an action against
Mutual alleging among other things fraud. Id. The jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Id. at 515. One issue
on appeal was theplaintiff's contention that contrary to
Mutual's policy, Mr. Mascotte represented to the plaintiff
he would be the expert in managing the agency. Id. at 520.
The court held there was insufficient proof that Mr.
Mascotte did not intend to treat the plaintiff as an expert.
Id. The court then considered the plaintiff's contention
that because Mr. Mascotte was Mutual's agent it was
irrelevant whether he knew his statements were false. Id.
The plaintiff [**11] argued further that "' [a] recovery can
be had for false representations made to another with the
intent that they becommunicated to a third person for the
purpose of defrauding said third person.'" Id. The court
stated "In Essex v. Getty Oil, 661 S.W.2d 544 (Mo. App. 1983
), the contract at issue had a termination clause, but
defendant's agent represented to plaintiff at the time it
was signed that it would be invoked only for good cause.
There was evidence the company had expressly directed a
misstatement."Id. The court held there was no evidence that
Mutual directed Mr. Mascotte to make the statements at issue
and the plaintiff did not identify any superior who
directed Mr.Mascotte to make such statements. Id. The court
also held that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence
that Mutual did not intend for him to be the expert in
running the agency. Id. The present case is analogous to
Emerick. Here, there was no evidence that MetLife expressly
directed Wu to make misstatements and plaintiffs fail to
identify anysuperior who directed Wu to make any
misstatements. Becausethere is no evidence that MetLife
directed or intended Wu to [**12] make false representations
, the converse instruction properly refers to Wu's rather
than MetLife's knowledge of the falsity of the
representations. See Tietjens v. General Motors Corp., 418 S
.W.2d 75, 79-80 (Mo. 1967). Plaintiffs also rely on Wilson v
. Murch, 354 S.W.2d332 (Mo. App. 1962), in which this court
stated: [*832] The law is well established that, where an
agent, acting within his [or her] actual or apparent
authority, procures the ????ution of a contract for the sale
of property by means of fraud, the principal is liable for
the damage incurred thereby, even though the principal is
innocent of personal participation in the fraud, when [the
principal] accepts and retains benefits which accrue from
the transaction. Wilson, 354 S.W.2d at 337. However, there
is a distinction between when a principal will be held
liable for the act of its agent as opposed to whether a jury
shouldbe instructed on the principal's or agent's knowledge
of the falsity of the representation. For reasons
previously stated, the trial court did not err in ????ting
the converse instruction that refers to Wu's knowledge of
the falsity of [**13] the representations. Plaintiffs also
contend that the verdict director and converse instruction
conflicted, and the effect was to improperly require
plaintiffs to prove that both Wu and MetLife knew that the
representation was false. Plaintiffs failed to specifically
argue at trial that the verdict director and converse
conflicted. Rule 70.03; Emery v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 976
S.W.2d 439, 445 (Mo. banc 1998). The converse properly
instructed as to Wu's knowledge. Plaintiffs' burden
regarding MetLife occurred because of the erroneous verdict
director offered by plaintiffs. See Union Electric Co. v.
Brown, 783 S.W.2d 409, 411 (Mo. App. 1989). Plaintiffs'
first point is denied. In their second point, plaintiffs
argue that the trial court abused its discretion in
sustaining MetLife's objection to plaintiffs' questioning
of Dong Li regarding the application for their child's policy
and an authorization for the bank to deduct premiums for
thepolicy. We review a trial court's ruling excluding
evidence for abuse of discretion. Howe v. ALD Services, Inc.,
941 S.W.2d 645, 654 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). Review of the
record reveals that [**14] the trial court did not abuse its
discretion. No error of law appears and an extended written
opinion for this point would have no precedential value.
Plaintiffs' second point is denied. Rule 84.16(b). The
judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Robert E. Crist,
Senior Judge James A. Pudlowski, P.J., and Clifford H.
Ahrens: Concur.
七、吴征在密苏里州创建的四所公司的纪录（均在短期内被州政府解散）
MISSOURI SECRETARY OF STATE, CORPORATE RECORD
Name: CHINA TV SHOPPING NETWORK DELIVERY SYSTEM, INC.
Type of Corporation: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION
Status: ADMINISTRATIVELY DISSOLVED
Status Comment: FAILURE TO FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT
Standing Status: NOT IN GOOD STANDING
Status Date: 02/03/1995
Date of Incorporation/Qualification: 07/14/1994
Filing Date: 07/14/1994
Duration: PERPETUAL
State of Incorporation: MISSOURI
Registered Agent: BRUNO Z. WU
Registered Office: 8155 ROCKLEDGE TRAIL
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63123
Tax Year:
Fiscal Year Begin: 07/14
Fiscal Year End: 07/13
Corporation Number: 00398534
History:
FRANCHISE
DATE STATUS TAX
---- ------ ---------
07/14/1994 ACTIVE
MISSOURI SECRETARY OF STATE, CORPORATE RECORD
Name: CHINA STOCK AND COMMODITY MARKET INSIGHT, INC.
Type of Corporation: CLOSE CORPORATION
Status: ADMINISTRATIVELY DISSOLVED
Status Comment: FAILURE TO FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT
Standing Status: NOT IN GOOD STANDING
Status Date: 09/15/1994
Date of Incorporation/Qualification: 02/14/1994
Filing Date: 02/14/1994
Duration: PERPETUAL
State of Incorporation: MISSOURI
Registered Agent: BRUNO Z. WU
Registered Office: 8155 ROCKLEDGE TRAIL
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63123
Tax Year:
Fiscal Year Begin: 02/14
Fiscal Year End: 02/13
Corporation Number: CC0391903
History:
FRANCHISE
DATE STATUS TAX
---- ------ ---------
02/14/1994 ACTIVE
MISSOURI SECRETARY OF STATE, CORPORATE RECORD
Name: CHINA INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP MEDIA AGENCY, INC.
Type of Corporation: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION
Status: ADMINISTRATIVELY DISSOLVED
Status Comment: FAILURE TO FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT
Standing Status: NOT IN GOOD STANDING
Status Date: 09/18/1995
Date of Incorporation/Qualification: 02/07/1994
Filing Date: 02/07/1994
Duration: PERPETUAL
State of Incorporation: MISSOURI
Registered Agent: BRUNO Z. WU
Registered Office: 8155 ROCKLEDGE TRAIL
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63123
Annual Report:
Last Report Filed: 05/06/1994
Prior Names: CHINA INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP ADVERTISING AGENCY, INC.
Tax Year:
Fiscal Year Begin: 02/07
Fiscal Year End: 02/06
Franchise Tax: No
Corporation Number: 00391647
History:
FRANCHISE
DATE STATUS TAX
---- ------ ---------
05/06/1994 ACTIVE No
ALL REQUIRED REPORTS FILED
02/07/1994 ACTIVE
NEW CORPORATION INCORPORATED WITHIN LAST 12 MONTHS
MISSOURI SECRETARY OF STATE, CORPORATE RECORD
Name: BRUNO WU AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Type of Corporation: CLOSE CORPORATION
Status: ADMINISTRATIVELY DISSOLVED
Status Comment: FAILURE TO FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT
Standing Status: NOT IN GOOD STANDING
Status Date: 08/31/1995
Date of Incorporation/Qualification: 01/14/1994
Filing Date: 01/14/1994
Duration: PERPETUAL
State of Incorporation: MISSOURI
Registered Agent: BRUNO Z. WU
Registered Office: 8155 ROCKLEDGE TRAIL
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63123
Annual Report:
Last Report Filed: 04/28/1994
Tax Year:
Fiscal Year Begin: 01/14
Fiscal Year End: 01/13
Franchise Tax: No
Corporation Number: CC0390738
History:
FRANCHISE
DATE STATUS TAX
---- ------ --------- |
|
