Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site mirror.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!mirror!ljd
From: ljd@mirror.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Harassment case
Message-ID: <6700001@mirror.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 17:13:00 EST
Article-I.D.: mirror.6700001
Posted: Thu Dec 19 17:13:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Dec-85 04:31:29 EST
References: <704@petrus.UUCP>
Lines: 17
Nf-ID: #R:petrus:-70400:mirror:6700001:000:801
Nf-From: mirror!ljd    Dec 19 17:13:00 1985


> /* Written  5:01 pm  Dec 19, 1985 by dawn@prism.UUCP in mirror:net.legal */
>
>	...a corporation, by definition,
> 	is a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person,
> 	although constituted by one or more persons.  By this definition, the
> 	entire body is responsible for the actions of any individual member of
> 	the body,  much like *you* would be responsible should your hand 
> 	choose to steal something.  Since the corporation is defined as a
> 	single person, (and with legally endowed rights and *duties*), the 
> 	issue of whether or not the corporation knew of the action(s) of its 
> 	member(s) is purely academic.


I wonder if it would be any different if a particular company is a
partnership or an entity owned by a single proprietor -- rather than a
corporation?