No, I am pointing out that no one knows his intent because we don't know the details of the deal.
It would not be a mistaken decision, but it could be a reluctant one. He sold the rights to pay off tax debts, the context matters in discussing whether he was actually okay with it or not. The ends doesn't justify the means, because the means was primarily financially motivated while you're ignoring this context entirely. You're only focused on the fact the deal was made, and not considering the context of why it was made. That's bad fucking faith because you're intentionally ignoring all factors of the discussion just to make your petty argument.
Again, Sophie's Choice parallel. Can you say that Sophie was okay with the decision to let any of her children die? Would you argue that because she allowed one to die, that she must be intent on giving authorization for either of them to die in any other context? You'd say she would be fine and okay with it because it happened?