California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deebs said:
Oh please. Go back to school. I shall educate you, the biggest empire in history was the British Empire. Just think (for a moment if you can), why the English Language is the standard for air, sea, business across the world.

Also, look back over the last 20 years, most of the worlds inventions have come from British people, and oh, let's not forget, an important point, who industrialised the world? I'll give you a clue, British.
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention your great senses of humor...
 
Paul said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability
Basically here in the UK you get company insurance covering you against being sued, up to an amount. otherwise termed as public liability insurance i think... :D
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I think you misunderstand the law, the article and the case. The link refers to what I described regarding the limited liability of a person's interests in an investment in a company.

1. Corporate insurance does not cover acts of an employee that are considering "outside the scope" of your employment with the company and even within the scope of liability, it only extends so far for those acts.
2. The insurance doesn't cover contracts you've made as an individual (employment contracts vBulletin Solutions made with the 3 founders personally prior to XenForo.)
3. Public liability insurance doesn't mean that there is insurance that covers people for their personal debts. If that was the case then all the gamblers would move to London and feel free to mortgage and bet the farm without consequence since the Insurance Money Tree will pay it back.
 
TheLaw said:
Respectfully, I think you misunderstand the law, the article and the case. The link refers to what I described regarding the limited liability of a person's interests in an investment in a company.

1. Corporate insurance does not cover acts of an employee that are considering "outside the scope" of your employment with the company and even within the scope of liability, it only extends so far for those acts.
2. The insurance doesn't cover contracts you've made as an individual (employment contracts vBulletin Solutions made with the 3 founders personally prior to XenForo.)
3. Public liability insurance doesn't mean that there is insurance that covers people for their personal debts. If that was the case then all the gamblers would move to London and feel free to mortgage and bet the farm without consequence since the Insurance Money Tree will pay it back.
Click to expand...

Hey, Dont shoot the messenger!! ;) This was what i understood as to what Deebs was referring to...
 
I surely spam my facebook profile... my friends will think: what the heck... oh this guy with his special IT things ^^

Oh and a pizza sounds nice..

I think I'll also buy an additional license.. if I don't do that next month... but anyway.. again and again ^^
 
Limited liability on that wikipedia page is when you set up a limited company, which by law is a legal and seperate entity, so any debts incurred by the company are not repayable by the directors of the company if a limited company becomes insolvent unless there are personal guarantees.

It has nothing to do with insurance.
 
TheLaw said:
Respectfully, I think you misunderstand the law, the article and the case. The link refers to what I described regarding the limited liability of a person's interests in an investment in a company.
Click to expand...
You will find the rules are quite different though once IB try and cross the waters into the UK courts... they will fail dismally bringing both personal and company action, as Commonwealth laws protect company owners from being sued and being liable for acts they make as part of the company. They can try a civil action, sure... but it won't last long unless they have some type of proof about Kier outside of Xenforo Ltd the company, and then they will have to justify why this action wasn't brought prior against Kier, if it existed, before Xenforo became a threat to them.

Commonwealth law is very clear about why a company is its own entity in the first place... as it is independent completely of its directors and you cannot target both without prior cause and personal assets cannot be gained unless they have been agreed to by the directors as security for company loans. That is the only way you can get at a directors personal belongings in most Commonwealth countries if it is a company, not just a business registration.

IB's greatest mistake was raising cases against both at the same time, instead of Kier first, then later down the track, Xenforo Ltd, towards the Commonwealth aspects.

Again... IB will have a hard time distinguishing the two because they didn't bring civil action for any such claims against Kier prior to him raising the company, Xenforo Ltd, and I suspect they know that, which is why their trying to push US law instead and the UK case is sitting still for the most part.
 
Anthony Parsons said:
You will find the rules are quite different though once IB try and cross the waters into the UK courts... they will fail dismally bringing both personal and company action, as Commonwealth laws protect company owners from being sued and being liable for acts they make as part of the company. They can try a civil action, sure... but it won't last long unless they have some type of proof about Kier outside of Xenforo Ltd the company, and then they will have to justify why this action wasn't brought prior against Kier, if it existed, before Xenforo became a threat to them.
Click to expand...
I understand but you guys need to appreciate the facts. Jelsoft is suing its former independent contractors with whom they had a contractual relationship individually - that's one transaction. Jelsoft is also suing the actions of the corporation, a different "person." I may only have some familiarity with English law but the systems are similar and frequently try to accomplish the same thing.

Anthony Parsons said:
IB's greatest mistake was raising cases against both at the same time, instead of Kier first, then later down the track, Xenforo Ltd, towards the Commonwealth aspects. Again... IB will have a hard time distinguishing the two because they didn't bring civil action for any such claims against Kier prior to him raising the company, Xenforo Ltd, and I suspect they know that, which is why their trying to push US law instead and the UK case is sitting still for the most part.
Click to expand...
Again, what you're saying doesn't make sense to me. Under the eyes of the law the two are supposed to be different "persons" and an action can be joined against multiple defendants when the case concerns a similar set of facts. Perhaps I'm wrong but there are bigger question marks than this, IMHO.

They may be trying to push the US case because they realized that they made a mistake filing in the UK. Who knows? Filing a preliminary injunction, then pulling it a little bit later... I'm not sure it pays to try to figure out what they are doing. I've taken the same approach with vBulletin 4 which sits half done everywhere and new half done features coming out all the time. Whatever. Let's remain positive and productive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom