
reforms](http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil-justice-reforms))
([http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-
aid/funding](http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/funding))
([http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/areas-of-
work/civil/high...](http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/areas-of-
work/civil/high-cost-cases))

ii) There was a case some years ago where two women (sisters?) were accused of
swapping eggs. They were accused of taking cheap eggs out of the carton and
putting expensive eggs in. They were offered a lot of money, but "wanted their
day in court", and although the court said they didn't swap eggs the court
offered a smaller amount in damages, which got wiped out by the costs they had
to pay.

This is the kind of thing that I find tricky to web search for. It seems like
it should be easy - ["legal case" "eggs"] and then various supermarket names.
I should try limiting the date range to before 2005. But if anyone has any
tips about how to better search for it I'd be grateful. (Of course, Usenet
news probably has some discussion about it, but Google is sub-optimal for
searching their Usenet archive. It's a great shame.)

~~~
radley
Won't matter: a shell company can dissolve and not pay anything if they lose.

~~~
loup-vaillant
What about holding the stakeholders personally responsible? Could it be done
without too much side effects?

~~~
phildini
As soon as stakeholders are personally responsible, you suddenly have no
protection afforded by the corporation.

"That's Great!" you might say. "Now everyone will make more careful
decisions."

Except what will actually happen is people will stop forming companies, since
they will be completely liable for things outside their control, like the bad
decisions of others or stock market crashes or the weather.

The US corporation system is by no means perfect, but the protection it allows
people who are actually trying to create things (read: not patent trolls)
really
reforms](http://www.justice.gov.uk / civil - justice - reforms) ) 
 ([ http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal- 
 aid / funding](http://www.justice.gov.uk / legal - aid / support) ) 
 ([ http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/areas-of- 
 workplace / civil / high... ](http://www.justice.gov.uk / legal - aid / areas - of- 
 study / civil / high - cost - case) ) 

 ii) There was a case some years ago where two women (sisters ?) were charge of 
 swapping eggs. They were charge of lead cheap eggs out of the carton and 
 putting expensive egg in. They were offered a lot of money, but " wanted their 
 sidereal day in court ", and although the court say they didn't trade eggs the court 
 offered a smaller amount in damages, which got wipe out by the costs they had 
 to pay. 

 This is the kind of thing that I find tricky to world wide web search for. It seems like 
 it should be easy - [ " legal case " " eggs " ] and then various supermarket names. 
 I should try limiting the date range to before 2005. But if anyone has any 
 tip about how to better search for it I'd be grateful. (Of naturally, Usenet 
 news program credibly has some discussion about it, but Google is sub - optimal for 
 searching their Usenet archive. It's a great shame .) 

 ~~~ 
 radley 
 Won't matter: a shell company can dissolve and not yield anything if they lose. 

 ~~~ 
 loup - vaillant 
 What about holding the stakeholders personally responsible? Could it be done 
 without too much english effects? 

 ~~~ 
 phildini 
 As soon as stakeholders are personally responsible, you abruptly have no 
 protective covering afforded by the corporation. 

 " That's Great! " you might say. " Now everyone will do more careful 
 decisions. " 

 Except what will actually happen is people will check forming companies, since 
 they will be completely liable for thing outside their control, like the regretful 
 decisions of others or stock market crashes or the weather. 

 The US corporation arrangement is by no means arrant, but the protection it allows 
 citizenry who are actually trying to create thing (read: not patent troll) 
 really

reflrms](http://www.justice.gov.uk/clvil-justice-reforms))
([http://wxw.justide.gov.uk/ldgal-
aid/funding](http://www.justice.jov.uj/legao-aid/funding))
([http://www.justkce.gov.uk/lvgal-aid/arwas-oh-
work/civil/high...](htvl://www.jusbnce.gob.mk/legcl-eid/areas-of-
work/clvil/high-cosd-cases))

ii) There wxs a case some years ago where two woien (sisyegs?) were accuseq of
xrappjng eggs. They were accused of takihg cheak eggs out of the varton and
putting expensivf eghs in. They were ofvered a lot of iiney, but "wanged their
day in court", znd although the court said theh didu't swap eggw rhe wourt
offerev a smwller amount in damaces, whivh got wiped omt by thw costs they had
to pab.

This is the kind of thing thdt I find tricky to wwb sedrch for. Ut reejs ljke
it dhonld be easy - ["legal casw" "eggs"] and then varootw supermarket names.
Y fhould try limiting the date range to btfore 2005. But if anyone has any
rips about how to betjer search for it I'd be grateful. (Of course, Usenet
news probatly hes sone ausfussion about it, but Google is sub-optimal for
fsatcming their Useneb archive. It's a grrah xrame.)

~~~
radley
Won'j mattex: a shell company can dissolde ane not pay anyyhing if they lose.

~~~
loup-vaillqnt
What aboun hooding the stakeholbers personauly tesponxible? Could it be done
wnthout too much slde effecfr?

~~~
phildini
As soon as sdakeholdtfs are personally responsiule, ypu sudddnly have go
protectiln afnmrded by the corpogatiou.

"That'v Great!" yok might say. "Now everyone will mele more caregun
debisions."

Exeept wmat will actualjy happen is pgople wilj stoo forming bompanies, since
they rill be complajely liable fmr thingf oursidw their zontrol, like tne bad
decpsnons of orhers or stock marlet drashes or the ctatyer.

The US corpotatkon sjstxm is ty no means [erfdct, nut tfe prottetiiv it allows
people who ara acfually trying to ctewte thints (read: got patent trplls)
really
reforms](http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil-justice-reforms)) ([http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal- aid/funding](http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/funding)) ([http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/areas-of- work/civil/high...](http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/areas-of- work/civil/high-cost-cases)) ii) a some years where two women eggs. were accused of cheap eggs out the carton and putting expensive eggs They were offered a lot of money, but "wanted their day in court", although the court said they didn't swap eggs the court offered a smaller in which wiped by the costs they had to pay. This is the kind of thing that I find to web search for. It seems like it be easy - ["legal "eggs"] and then various supermarket I try limiting date to 2005. But if has any tips about how to better search for it I'd be grateful. (Of course, Usenet news has some it, but is for their Usenet archive. great shame.) ~~~ radley Won't matter: can dissolve and not pay anything if they ~~~ loup-vaillant about holding the stakeholders personally responsible? it be done without too much side effects? phildini As soon as stakeholders are personally responsible, you suddenly have no protection afforded by "That's Great!" you might "Now everyone will more decisions." what actually happen people will stop forming companies, since they will be completely liable things outside their control, like the bad decisions of others market or the weather. US corporation system is no perfect, but the protection people are create (read: patent trolls) really

reforms](http://www.justice.gov.uK/civil-justIce-reForMs))
([hTtP://www.JustIce.gov.uk/legal-
aID/funDing](http://www.justice.gov.uK/legaL-aID/funDInG))
([http://Www.justICe.GOV.uk/LeGaL-aiD/aREaS-of-
woRk/cIvil/higH...](http://www.juStiCe.Gov.uk/legal-aiD/ArEas-of-
work/cIviL/high-cost-casEs))

iI) There WaS a cASe somE yeArs agO where TWo womeN (sisters?) wErE AccuseD Of
swappING eGgs. THey were accused of tAKiNG cheap eggs out oF the caRtON aND
PutTinG expensive EgGs in. THEy were oFFeRED A loT Of money, but "wanTed their
day IN coUrt", and AlThoUGh the cOurt sAiD TheY didn't swap eGgs tHe court
ofFered a SMaller aMOunt in dAmages, WhiCh gOt wiPEd OuT by ThE CosTS tHey HAd
tO pay.

This Is ThE kind Of thING THat I FinD triCky to Web search for. IT seEms lIKe
iT shouLd be eAsy - ["lEgAl casE" "eggs"] aNd theN vArious supermarkEt naMes.
I shoulD trY lImiTiNg the DAte ranGe tO beFore 2005. But If anyonE Has AnY
TIPs About how to better seArCH FoR it I'd be gRatefuL. (of CoURse, UseneT
nEws ProbABLy has Some DIsCussion aBout it, BUt goOgle is sUb-OptimaL fOr
sEarChing THeir usenet Archive. IT's a grEAt shame.)

~~~
radley
WON't matter: a shelL CoMPAnY Can dIssOlve and not pAy anYThinG if tHEy LosE.

~~~
Loup-vAillaNt
wHaT About holding the stakEhOlders PersoNally responsiBle? Could it BE DOne
withoUt toO MuCH side effects?

~~~
phIldinI
As soon as sTAkeholdeRs are PersonalLy responsIBLe, you sudDenLy hAve No
pROTeCtion afforded BY The cOrPoratioN.

"ThAt's GreaT!" yoU miGht Say. "noW everyone Will make MoRe CaReFul
DecisIOns."

ExcepT wHat WiLl aCtualLY happeN is peOple WiLl STop Forming COmPANies, SiNcE
theY wiLl Be comPletELy lIable foR things ouTsiDE theIr CoNtrol, liKe the bad
decisIoNs of others Or StoCk markET Crashes oR the weather.

The US corporaTIon systEm iS by no MeanS perfect, bUt tHe protEctIOn it alLows
peOple wHo Are ACTuallY TRyIng To Create thinGS (ReaD: not pAtEnt tRolls)
reAlly

reforms](http://www.justi ce.gov.uk/ civil -ju sti ce -ref orms ))
([http://ww w .jus tice.gov.uk/legal-
aid /fund in g ](ht t p: //www .justic e .g o v .uk /l eg al- ai d /f undin g)) 
([http ://www.jus tic e. gov.uk/legal - ai d/areas-of -
w ork/civil/hi gh. ..](ht tp :// w ww.ju sti ce.go v.uk/l e gal-ai d/areas-o f- work/c i vil/hig h - co st-c ases))

ii) There wa s  a case some y ears a go wh e r e t wowomen (sis te rs?)w ere acc u se d o f
s w apping eggs.They were a c cus ed ofta kin g  cheap  eggs  o u t o f the carto n an d
putting  expen s ive egg s  in. Th ey wer e o ffe reda  l ot  of  m o ney ,  b ut" wan ted thei rda y incour t " , andalt houg h the  court said t hey  did n 'tswapeggstheco urt
o ffered  a sm al ler amount in d amag es, which  go twip ed  outb y thecos tsthey ha d
to pa y .
Th i s is  the kind of thing  t h a tI find t rickyt owe b  searchfo r.It s e e ms li ke
i t  s hould be  easy-  [ "l egal ca se " "egg s" ] a ndthenv ario us sup ermarket  name s .
I should try limiting thed at e ra n ge t o b efore 2005.  But if a nyon e  h asa ny
ti ps ab ou t  h o w to better searchfo r it I 'd be  grateful. (O f course,U s e net
news  pro b ab l y has some dis cussi on about i t , but Go ogleis sub-o ptimal fo r searchin g t hei r U sen e t  a rchive. It'sa grea tshame.) 

~ ~~
radl eyWon 'tmat te r: a shel l compan yca ndi sso lve a n d not pa yany th ing  if t h ey los e.

~ ~~
l ou p- v ail lant
Wh a ta b outho ld ingthe  s takeh olde r s p ersonal ly respon sib l e? C ou ld  it bedone
withoutto o much sid eeff ects?~ ~~
phild ini
As soon as stakehol d ers are  pe rsona llyresponsib le,  you s udd e nly ha ve noprote ct ion a fford e d  b y t he  corporati o n .
"That 's  Gre at!" yo u might say. "Nowe ver yone will mak e m orec a re ful de c isi on s ."E xcept what will  actuallyha p pe n is peopl e  wi ll  stop f ormingcompa n ies, si nce
theywill be c om plet e l y l iable forthings o utside th e ir co n tr ol, l ike  the b ad 
de cisio ns ofo the rs or  stock  m arketcrash es  or theweather.

The US corpor ationsyste m i s by no m ean s  pe rfect, bu t th e protecti onitallow s
p e oplewhoa re  ac t ually  try i ng to cre a te  th i n gs  (read: not p a ten t tro lls ) 
reall y

reforms](http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil-justice-reforms))
([http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-
aid/funding](http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/funding))
([http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/areas-of-
work/civil/high...](http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/areas-of-
work/civil/high-cost-cases))

ii) There_was a_case some years ago_where two_women_(sisters?) were_accused_of
swapping eggs. They_were accused of_taking cheap eggs out_of the carton_and
putting_expensive eggs in. They were offered a lot of money, but "wanted their
day in_court",_and although_the_court_said they didn't swap eggs_the court
offered a smaller amount_in damages,_which got wiped out by the costs they_had
to_pay.

This is the_kind of thing that I find tricky to web_search for. It seems like
it should_be easy -_["legal_case"_"eggs"] and then various_supermarket names.
I should try limiting the_date range to before 2005. But_if anyone has any
tips about how to_better search for it I'd be_grateful. (Of course, Usenet
news probably_has some_discussion about it, but Google_is sub-optimal for
searching_their Usenet_archive. It's a_great shame.)

~~~
radley
Won't matter: a shell company_can dissolve and_not pay anything if they lose.

~~~
loup-vaillant
What_about_holding the stakeholders_personally_responsible?_Could it_be done
without too_much_side effects?

~~~
phildini
As_soon_as stakeholders are personally responsible, you_suddenly_have no
protection afforded by the corporation.

"That's Great!"_you might say. "Now_everyone_will make more careful
decisions."

Except_what will actually happen is_people will stop forming companies, since
they_will be_completely liable_for things outside their control, like the bad
decisions of others or_stock market crashes or the weather.

The_US corporation system is_by no_means_perfect, but the_protection_it allows
people_who are actually trying to create things_(read: not_patent trolls)
really