attention RL info posting nerds

[Fael]

I would think that a guild is a partnership and they elect certain managing partners. The partnership is never liable for the act of one partner, unless said partner is functioning as agent and within the scope of that agency.

An individuals liability is only binding on his share of partnership rights.

So nothing special about an officer, unless the act is done within scope of his duties which are to manage the guild website, make loot decisions, lead raids, deal with recruitment and sales etc.

Dolic

[zanderklocke]

Originally Posted by Fael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I would think that a guild is a partnership and they elect certain managing partners. The partnership is never liable for the act of one partner, unless said partner is functioning as agent and within the scope of that agency.

An individuals liability is only binding on his share of partnership rights.

So nothing special about an officer, unless the act is done within scope of his duties which are to manage the guild website, make loot decisions, lead raids, deal with recruitment and sales etc.

Dolic

So guilds can now apply for for LLC or LLP?

I'm guessing Class R is mainly 501(c)3.

[Duckwalk]

Originally Posted by Fael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I would think that a guild is a partnership and they elect certain managing partners. The partnership is never liable for the act of one partner, unless said partner is functioning as agent and within the scope of that agency.

An individuals liability is only binding on his share of partnership rights.

So nothing special about an officer, unless the act is done within scope of his duties which are to manage the guild website, make loot decisions, lead raids, deal with recruitment and sales etc.

Dolic

You can ignore third party liability and intentional torts all you want but it doesn't change the fact that a partnership or lp or llp or llc or whatever will be liable for intentional torts of its agents or employees which benefit it.

[Duckwalk]

The question turns on whether Dinacarl's actions benefitted TMO as a guild.

Now considering rumors that TMO group was there to snipe certain mobs/prevent rival guild gear certain classes.....

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Duckwalk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The question turns on whether Dinacarl's actions benefitted TMO as a guild.

Not yet. The bouncer example attaches liability in that physical torts are practically expected as part of the fulfillment of his duties. However, the Glitter Factory isn't liable when their bouncer goes across the street and blows up Bushwacker's Gentlemen's club which would ultimately benefit the former.

Training the shit out of someone is not to be expected of or anticipated of a pulling monk unless Tortue is on the job.

[Duckwalk]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Training the shit out of someone is not to be expected of or anticipated of a pulling monk unless Tortue is on the job.

You need to rethink this statement.

[Splorf22]

Fun thread!

Originally Posted by Fael

Loraens idea that a raid offense is determined by the entity trained not by the identity trainer is also equally devoid of logic.

I am, thankfully, not a lawyer. However I'm not sure you understand my point. One of the big arguments being presented by the TMO Young Lawyer team is that because there were only 5 TMO in zone and no raid mobs up, it was not a raid dispute. My point was (and is) that because BDA had 20+ people, they were a raid. The number of TMO and the status of the zone are irrelevant. My point was not "BDA gets to claim a raid dispute because, like, that's their opinion, man".

The other point the TMO young lawyer squad tried to make that Dinacarl acted on his own, they were not liable. And I don't agree with that one, either. An organization is responsible for its members. Maybe not in a directly WE CAN SUE YOU sense, but they are. When a cop shoots a civilian, everyone starts asking questions of the chief of police. And they are pissed off, rightly so. Which brings us to:

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not yet. The bouncer example attaches liability in that physical torts are practically expected as part of the fulfillment of his duties. However, the Glitter Factory isn't liable when their bouncer goes across the street and blows up Bushwacker's Gentlemen's club which would ultimately benefit the former.

Training the shit out of someone is not to be expected of or anticipated of a pulling monk unless Tortue is on the job.

Let's also not forget that Unbrella was in the zone - a fact which I mentioned prominently in my original post. That would be like your bouncer taking a flamethrower to your competition's club across the street while the owner looks on approvingly and talks about how it will make an interesting court case. I think his presence invalidates most of your examples. And yes, if Dinacarl had randomly decided to declare war on BDA with no other TMO aware of his actions (cough svenn cough), I wouldn't be quite so quick to assign blame, although I would think the organization should do what they can to compensate the victims. Which I think Cobble is working on.

Also these arguments in general are a great example of people trying to rules lawyer away common sense.

[Cecily]

Originally Posted by Duckwalk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The question turns on whether Dinacarl's actions benefitted TMO as a guild.

Of course it did. Most of us got a good laugh out of it.

[Lictor]

Perhaps the fear trainer is an independent contractor for the unwritten partnership furthering the joint venture of RMT from two members of TMO. Thus decreasing liability.

[Fountree]

Come back Uth!!!