From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Mon Sep 04 2000 - 14:37:26 MDT
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, phil osborn wrote:
>
> If a known violent psycho comes up to me and says he want to kill some
> people who I don't particularly like, but he needs a gun, and I give him the
> gun, which he would never be able to acquire by himself, knowing what he
> intends to do with it, am I not responsible?
>
> Corporate limited liability can be a very convenient way to do things that
> might very well get one sued or jailed otherwise. For a wealthy individual
> or group, forming a corporation, as opposed to a business partnership, can
> be very lucrative, as they force the risk costs onto innocent involuntary
> participants.
If an employee of a corporation knowingly does something grossly negligent
or illegal at the request of their employers, then that employee deserves
to be held accountable for their actions. Limited liability and the
ability to direct the actions of a corporation at this level of detail are
mutually exclusive from a legal standpoint. If you want to keep one, you
have to give up the other. So in response to your assertion, a corporation
makes a very poor shield for illegal activities.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:46 MST