RangerDave wrote:
As someone who inevitably bumps up against deadlines myself, I sympathize with these sentiments, but unfortunately, that's just not how the world works in many cases. For routine informational filings, sure, as long as you get it in by the deadline you're fine. However, when you're submitting something to someone who has to then act on the basis of your submittal, waiting until the last minute often pisses them off and/or bites you in the ***. Repeatedly file things with a judge at the last minute, and pretty soon you'll be getting rebuked for dragging things out by a very annoyed judge.
I realize judges may get away with that sort of crap, but they shouldn't, and practically anywhere else if you turn something in by a deadline its
on time. The deadline should be set so that whoever is the recipient has ample time to work from then on; if they don't it's A) their fault and B) unethical to treat that turn-in any differently from anything else. In the military, a suspense is a suspense. If you're 2 seconds late, you're late. 2 seconds early, you're on time.
Quote:
Submit a bid in response to an RFP on the last day of the bidding period, and you run the risk of not having your full proposal seriously considered unless your top-line number is clearly better than those submitted earlier. Wait until the last day of the cure period under your loan agreement to cure a default, and the lenders will be hounding you non-stop. And so on. Point is, I think Zucker and his attorney made a tactical error when they chose to file at the last minute, and it seems like they did it because they were pissed off about the whole thing. That just strikes me as a dumb move.
Except it wasn't aq "dumb move" at all; they took the alotted time. They should expect ethical behavior from government agencies, especially one that was under no particular urgency to do anything once their plan was turned in. It wasn't like there was some deadline the CPSC was up against to get this fixed other than deadlines of their own making.
Quote:
The fact that limited liability for corporate officers is arguably necessary in the modern economy doesn't negate the reality that it is, by definition, a statutory scheme that shields those officers from liability for their actions in most circumstances. Hell, the fact that I couldn't think of a way to write that sentence that didn't sound like a tautology kind of demonstrates the point! Statutes that limit the liability of corporate officers tend to, you know, limit their liability...statutorily. You don't think expressing strong support for a government rule that protects people from bearing the full legal consequences of their actions while at the same time strongly condemning "nanny-state excesses" that undermine "personal responsibility" - without even acknowledging the apparent inconsistency, let alone trying to justify it - is just a tad oblivious?
No, it's not oblivious at all, especially since it is not a "scheme" nor a "shield". You're using predjudicial language, which was very obvious from the tone of your earlier post on the subject. Furthermore, when people talk about personal responsibility, they are obviously not talking about actions taken when personal interests are in conflict with those of another entity the person has a fiduciary duty or other responsibility to. When a person acts as the agent or officer of another person or entity, their actions are not their own actions; they're taken on behalf of their principle. As long as their actions fall within the scope of their duties, are in good faith, and lawful, there
is no personal responsibility. The actions essentially belong to the principle who has appointed the agent or officer.
They have to bear the consequences.
People cannot expect to appoint agents to take actions on their behalf (or their corporation's) and then turn around and say "oh, well personal responsibility" when things go south. It is not hypocritical or oblivious to take this stance either; its entirely in keeping with the nature of the responsibility. The fact that people here didn't, in the past, go through this explanation when there was no bearing on the conversations in question isn't relevant.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
That's just not fair, Kaffis.
