Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> That's legal covering the company.

Er, how does it cover the company? Company is responsible regardless.



sort by: page size:

> Does anyone have any insight as to why companies fail to do this?

Because their responsibility to do so hasn't (yet) been translated into legal liability.

A lot would change if someone could successfully sue a company for not keeping one of these sorts of promises.


The parent comment is discussing civil liability:

> ... then you as a company should be allowed to be sued into oblivion as well.


> ... indeed they would be liable for anything bad that happens if they don't ...

Legally liable? I highly doubt that.


> I feel like if they have the legal power to do things on your behalf, then you have to be legally liable if they screw something up.

just take a page out of corporations' way of doing things, and use a limited liability entity for everything. You get the benefits, but is not legally liable.


> If my business goes down, I am personally liable.

Why? I also own my own business (an LLC somewhere in Europe), but if it goes down, I am not personally liable, at all (unless it's due to gross negligence established by a court case).


> If the UG or GmbH goes belly up, am I in any way personally responsible?

Not as long as you did everything lawfully.


>>> ...any company get such special treatment.

ANY company. I'd say that covers other states.


> are they then liable?

Of course they are.


>Why not name the company?

I'm going to guess OP may be 'liable' for damaging the company's reputation.


> They are just protecting their business, which is legit.

The business is legit. The way they protect it may be legal, but it is not legit. (Not legal advice, just a moral judgement.)


> Isn't that how a corporation should work?

Not when gross negligence occurs.

EDIT: Gross negligence in the legal sense.


> Also legally, if a company makes an offer and you make a financial change on the basis of that offer, the company is legally liable for all costs incurred.

Can you elaborate on this?


> Blame the courts, basically.

No, blame these companies for trying hard to avoid workplace protection.


> I imagine they take their SLAs very seriously.

What are the liabilities on them for failing to meet their SLA? Taking thing seriously is not a liability. Specifically in this case, what are their liability to you?


> You may incur a substantial liability

No, you don't.


> This clause just seems like a way to give a company the option to sue you for anything at all, regardless of whether it caused them any damages

Or if it's true.


> but they can't DQ you just for that

This depends entirely on jurisdiction and company policy.


>couldn't they have worded this a little more sympathetic and a little less lawyer?

Sure, if all the lawyers will promise not to take some statement out of context and sue them over that.. As long as such lawyers exist and that's the way the legal system works this is what can be expected out of statements from companies..


> Well if there is a measurable harm that can be traced back to a given company why shouldn't they be sued?

Say I overhear my neighbors talking with each other. Despite my not knowing them, if based on listening to their conversation I decid to go kill some people at my place of employment - that is on me. My neighbors do not bear any responsibility. At some point there is the concept of personal responsibility. Honestly, this should be obvious.

next

Legal | privacy