If it ain't broke...
Apologies Andreas currently swamped at work but as a very quick response rules 6 and 20 set from day 1 and applicable to most forums should provide an answer. Definitely will look into them again just time permitting.British company law is quite clear. Darron and Wickham Soap Co. Ltd are two separate legal entities/persons.
Darron is not Wickham Soap Ltd, although he may be a spokesperson for the company or hold shares.
Darron is not liable for what Wickham Soap Co. Ltd. does - that's the concept behind limited companies.
If you have beef with the company you can sue the company, but not the shareholders personally.
Wickham Soap Co. Ltd is not liable for what Darron does as Darron while not representing the company.
If Darron runs over a chicken with his bicycle, the owner of the chicken can't sue the company.
Discriminating against members because they are shareholders in a limited (or public) company would cause me headaches without end.
Treating a limited or public company as being identical to its shareholders causes all sorts of trouble.
Consider the following scenarios:
P.S.: Sole traders are a different issue.
- Wickham Soap Co. Ltd. hire me as Social Media Manager. Would I need to give up my personal account? Could Darron have his back?
- Wickham Soap Co. Ltd. hire 10 Social Media Managers and I'm one of them. Would I need to give up my personal account?
- I buy one share in Wickham Soap Co.Ltd. I now own 0.1% of the company. Would I need to give up my personal account?
- Darron sells four times 20% of his shares in Wickham Soap Co. Ltd. to me and 3 other members. Would we all need to give up our personal accounts?
- Same scenarios with Gillette, if they had an account. Would I need to give up my personal account?
End of rant.
I believe that if Darron had a vendor's account from the beginning, he couldn't be able to participate a lot in the discussions. Imagine if he disliked a soap and wrote it in public what the reactions would be. If I dislike something, no problem, I'm a user only not a vendor.Whilst I appreciate the rules and the decisions the mods have taken. I would like to make a few comments if I may.
Firstly, I think it's great that this discussion is taking place and that the mods are allowing it to take place.
Secondly, I agree with some of the comments above and I think that there is some merit to members and vendors from clearly separating the vendor account and the personal account. I wouldn't expect a vendor to be commenting on general matters or other people's products. Yet a personal account would clearly separate this issue. Members would then be crystal clear as to the interaction taking place. Potential abuse of this would be identifiable and the mods could then deal with it as required. Clear labelling of the vendor account would continue.
I think that this matter has only arisen due to the previous decisions taken for vendors to be required to support the forum with fees. At that point some vendors chose to pay and some didn't. In this particular case, Darron chose to participate as a member rather than marketing, running group buys etc. A decision was then taken to become a vendor with a separate account and here we are.
Could a discussion be had between the mods and existing vendors to gauge opinion as to whether it would be useful for all vendors to have the option of separate accounts?
I still don't know how the decision would be in any of my scenarios.Apologies Andreas currently swamped at work but as a very quick response rules 6 and 20 set from day 1 and applicable to most forums should provide an answer. Definitely will look into them again just time permitting.
Sorry, but you struggle with legal facts, not fiction.I struggle with this legal fiction when management, directors or controlling shareholders are not held accountable for the actions of a corporation. A corporation is inanimate and as such is not capable of making decisions, taking actions, etc; these are made by people. Thus, when a corporation is sued, fined, etc its management, directors, controlling shareholders should be indicted as well.