| http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#value | - The court also held that Dahl was not a "seller within the meaning of 12(1) and therefore could not be held liable in contribution for the other respondents' claims against Pinter, since, although Dahl's conduct was a "substantial factor in causing the other respondents' purchases, there was no evidence that he had sought or received financial benefit for himself or anyone other than the other r
|
