Who is the actual responsible party

The question has been raised times and times again that as CTP didn't authorised Trevor Shortt to do what he did, (and this is the argument that CTP and the dreamers on the other side of the camp have been putting up), that they are not responsible towards Niraj Pande and that it is only a "Frivolous Claim Issue".

I said many times that this is incorrect and now I post herein as to why I am of the beliefs that I am right in saying what I did.

JUST READ BELOW AND YOU WILL SEE THEREIN AS TO WHY I AM SAYING WHAT I AM:


"It is well known that employers can be held liable for the acts and omissions of employees, and while most employees are mindful of their duties, it is worth remembering that employees also have a responsibility in this area and can be held personally liable themselves, with considerable consequences for failure to fulfill that responsibility.

Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.

First, employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee's labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.

Second, when someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal.

========

Employers are vicariously liable under the doctrine of "respondeat superior" for the negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. The key phrase is "in the course of employment".

Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability. The law has developed the view that some relationships by their nature require the person who engages others to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing of those others. The most important such relationship for practical purposes is that of employer and employee [1]""


I hope this will help, and I am sure that it will create some good responses and give good reasons for much needed debates.

Interesting to note though, the part were it states "The key phrase is "in the course of employment"."

Now, wasn't T. Shortt engaged to do something while in the US of A.??

After all there was at least one of the Board Directors with him at the time too, and I don't think that they were just there on a junket trip.

There will be a time that we will all find out as to what will happen in this regard. Nevertheless, and in the meantime, no one is telling us how much we have spent thus far in Legals and whatever else we paid money for, for this Court Case.

Regards to all and sundries.