Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
AI Subscribe Login/Register account icon
S&P 500
7,520.36
(
0.02%
)
US TECH 100
29,112.68
(
-0.34%
)
Dow Jones
50,644.28
(
0.36%
)
Brent Oil
94.83
(
2.59%
)
Bitcoin
72,906.98
(
-2.64%
)
News Focus
News Focus
Post# of 27567
Next 10
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

ronpopeil

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 123
Posts 8886
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/05/2004

ronpopeil

Re: Bourbon_on_my_cornflakes post# 11042

Tuesday, 07/15/2008 10:52:52 AM

Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:52:52 AM

Post# of 27567
yes, i agree 100%. we were just talking about agency law (respondeat superior) and whether JP could in some way argue that Ulrich's behavior could not be imputed to the company. Obviously it can;t in this case. There are cases where an employer will not be held accountable for an employees actions. This normally occurs if the employee engages in behavior that could not be foreseen by the company, were not related the employees work and were just so "out there" that the employer should not be held responsible.

"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia"

Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today