> I take issue with the fact that the company has any say in the matter at all, tbh.
What? How does that make any sense. Someone stole their property, it's still theirs, of course they have a say in what happens to it. "Finders Keepers" is not how the world works...
> People finding ways to strip out assets from companies.
If those people don't own the company, what is the owner doing by allowing this to happen?
If those people _are_ the owners, then there shouldn't be a problem, since it's their own company, and they ought to be allowed to do anything they wish. Including short term reward for long term loss (if it is worth it in their eyes).
So i dont think it's "looting" (implying it's being stolen without knowledge of the owner).
Implying that individual people can keep up with legalese written in an intentionally misleading way by teams of lawyers is crazy. Especially when seemingly every single company and sale is treated like that.
It is effectively impossible for an average person to understand every agreement you need to make to be part of modern society, and that is by design of the companies
> The fact that buying big solid things like cars has typically, thus far, in our society, meant owning every physical piece of that thing, doesn't and shouldn't override what it says in the contract.
I think I'm not alone in saying that yes it SHOULD override what it says in the contract. You can write whatever you like in contracts, but that does not make it reasonable behavior.
> Because it's their corporation and they can do whatever they want with it
That is not true. there are many things corporations cannot do even if they want to. There's lots of different regulations that impose restrictions and obligations on companies against "what they want".
So now it's just defining where that line is, which is what law-making is.
>They have the authority to open your package at any time for any reason, with few exceptions. //
Contract law in USA is that weak? They have authority? As in the law authorises anyone to access anything just by virtue of being contracted to move it, not even ownership? Contractual obligation can't override that authorisation .. are you sure?
That would mean, for example, that your taxi-driver has the right to go through your bags by virtue of you asking them to put them in their car. Or that Starbucks have a _right_ to access your laptop if you left it in the store for any length of time. Or if you park in a private parking lot the owner could break in, hot wire and drive your car around.
Or are you saying that only certain possessions are treated as if you didn't own them and only certain companies contracts are treated as null?
> For another example, let’s say you were an employee of a retailer with the power to set a discount on certain items. You suddenly set a 100% discount on every item in the store and then buy all the inventory for $0. Try explaining to the police that you were actually fully within your legal right to do that.
But if you were the board, or the majority shareholder, it would be fine. Which is what happened here.
They borrowed money, bought a majority of the BEAN, used that BEAN to vote on their proposal to take all the money, and it passed. They kept the money, sold the BEAN, and returned the borrowed money.
If it's not written in the law nothing is "supposed to"
reply