Abstract

Any paternalistic obligation a salesperson might have toward a client isnot, as was previously argued, determined or grounded in his/her being in a position of superior knowledge. Rather, the obligation stems first and most basically from the principle of non-maleficence. Beyond that, however, the particulars of any such obligation: who is vulnerable to being harmed, the harm(s) that might occur and even the kinds of actions that can reasonably be taken to protect a client from such harm, all flow from the fact that the salesperson-client relationship is fundamentally one of dependency and trust.Various reasons are given to support this view and to indicate both the comprehensiveness and the fruitfulness of this way of perceiving the sales situation. In particular, the argument rules out of consideration what would, on analysis, be self-defeating or contradictory behavior on the part of the client and it helps explain why a salesperson is not obligated to certain behaviors.