donjuan2002
join:2002-10-06
Kearny, NJ | reply to captokita
Re: That'd be a sight....
Well that will be the Owner of the company in this case the CEO that is in charge, somebody is getting is going to lose his/her job. |
|
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by donjuan2002  :Well that will be the Owner of the company in this case the CEO that is in charge, somebody is getting is going to lose his/her job. Umm, who would they take. Certainly not the CEO. The whole purpose of getting a corporate license is so no one is personally held responsible for damages/lawsuits. It's likely if handcuffs would be issued, the people who handled the guys business would be under fire, not the CEO. I doubt anyone would be in cuffs, however. Nice to see a person taking it to court when they refused to resolve it. I DO hate when companies bill you, screw up your credit, and refuse to fix things, when it's not you who was in error. I try to handle those situations one on one, so this scenario doesn't happen.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. |
|
pb5k
more cowbell
Premium
join:2005-11-16
Glendale, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
| said by phattieg :said by donjuan2002 :Well that will be the Owner of the company in this case the CEO that is in charge, somebody is getting is going to lose his/her job. Umm, who would they take. Certainly not the CEO. The whole purpose of getting a corporate license is so no one is personally held responsible for damages/lawsuits. I think you're confusing stockholder liability with that of management liability. While it is true that shareholders can not be held responsible for a corporation's actions, its ethically challenged employees most definitely can be.
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" --
Theodore Roosevelt |
|
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by pb5k :said by phattieg :said by donjuan2002 :Well that will be the Owner of the company in this case the CEO that is in charge, somebody is getting is going to lose his/her job. Umm, who would they take. Certainly not the CEO. The whole purpose of getting a corporate license is so no one is personally held responsible for damages/lawsuits. I think you're confusing stockholder liability with that of management liability. While it is true that shareholders can not be held responsible for a corporation's actions, its ethically challenged employees most definitely can be. Please read the post. I already said what you said, only I chose different wording which may have confused my point. The whole reply says the CEO won't go to jail, but whoever managed his account will be the likely culprit. It's probably not well documented as to who exactly handled his issue, so there was no one to send to court.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. |
|
pb5k
more cowbell
Premium
join:2005-11-16
Glendale, AZ
·Cox HSI
| Please learn to write a more cogent post before criticising another's reading abilities.
said by phattieg :The whole purpose of getting a corporate license is so no one is personally held responsible for damages/lawsuits. The wording in that post clearly implies that no one within a company may be held liable simply because of its corporate structure, which clearly isn't the case.
If you meant something else, it wasn't broadcast as clearly as you thought. My apologies.
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" --
Theodore Roosevelt |
|
