stasi council

Need help and support? Post here and we will do our best.

Re: stasi council

Postby pitano1 » Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:54 pm

bin emptied,as usual,on .20,8.2013

things seem to have gone very silent,regarding mr.blandford,and his offer,for
me to rummage,through fetid waste.

i did send,them/him,a nice letter,on 20.8.2013.

NICE LETTER.

dear mrs. XXXXXX...name ommited,as she did not act like an arshole
[within the legal dept.]

thank you for taking,the time,to offer,your assistance,in
resolving this misunderstanding.
please see email [attatched]

you may find this of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability#The_liability_of_corporations_in_tort

The liability of corporations in tort[edit source | editbeta]

In English law, a corporation can only act through its employees and agents so it is necessary to decide in which circumstances the law of agency or vicarious liability will apply to hold the corporation liable in tort for the frauds of its directors or senior officers.

If liability for the particular tort requires a state of mind, then to be liable, the director or senior officer must have that state of mind and it must be attributed to the company. In Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Limited v. Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500, two employees of the company, acting within the scope of their authority but unknown to the directors, used company funds to acquire some shares. The question was whether the company knew, or ought to have known that it had acquired those shares.

The Privy Council held that it did. Whether by virtue of their actual or ostensible authority as agents acting within their authority (see Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716) or as employees acting in the course of their employment (see Armagas Limited v Mundogas S.A. [1986] 1 AC 717), their acts and omissions and their knowledge could be attributed to the company, and this could give rise to liability as joint tortfeasors where the directors have assumed responsibility on their own behalf and not just on behalf of the company.

So if a director or officer is expressly authorised to make representations of a particular class on behalf of the company, and fraudulently makes a representation of that class to a Third Party causing loss, the company will be liable even though the particular representation was an improper way of doing what he was authorised to do. The extent of authority is a question of fact and is significantly more than the fact of an employment which gave the employee the opportunity to carry out the fraud.

In Panorama Developments (Guildford) Limited v Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Limited [1971] 2 QB 711, a company secretary fraudulently hired cars for his own use without the knowledge of the managing director. A company secretary routinely enters into contracts in the company's name and has administrative responsibilities that would give apparent authority to hire cars. Hence, the company was liable.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i feel,that kings lynn `waste managment`,need to clarify the situation,regarding..who is employing who`
and who gave them authority/consent,to order me to do `anything`
[BECAUSE I CERTAINLY HAVE NOT]

HOWEVER.
i will conditionally accept,Environmental Services claim.[barry brandford],upon receipt,of an
affidafit of truth,signed,with a wet signature, under his,full commercial liability.

stating,that.

that mr.barry bandford,has any authority,over me...period.


that lawfully `kings lynn Environmental Services,are exempt,from
the law of contract.

that any contract,`kings lynn Environmental Services make,is binding on
me,in `anyway.

that i have a unilateral,or any contract,with kings lynn Environmental Services.


that kings lynn Environmental Services,are not acting unlawfully,in this matter.
ie..charging for this service,and imposing sanctions,for none compliance
regarding recycling.


that ordering a taxpayer/victim,to rummage through fetid rubbish,is not,an act,of
gross negligence.





Absent the return of the Affidavit, duly signed by, mr.bandford, I consider this matter is now concluded.

Sincerely, without ill-will (at this time), vexation (at this time) or frivolity,


Without any admission of any liability for anything whatsoever, and with all Natural, Fundamental, Indefeasible (i.e. Common Law) Rights reserved.

by.chris,of the family XXXXXX

ps.if,they are dumb,enough,to reply... :giggle:

WATCH THIS SPACE :clap: :clap:
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Previous

Return to Help Wanted

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron