Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I don't know if it's the same in the US, but in the UK, the directors of a company have a legal duty to maximise the return for their shareholders. If they fail to do so, they can be taken to court.
|
Misunderstanding, at least in the US. The directors' duty is to manage the company in the best interests of the stockholders. MBA's in particular tend to think that means maximizing return, but IMO that's because higher returns justify their over-compensation. Sometimes directors will choose a lower return if they feel it's safer-or even if they simply feel it will generate less backlash (which means higher returns in the long run, but if most companies looked at the long run we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place, right?)
Shaggy, I think the issue with selling a book without a cover (rebound or not) lies in the assumption that the book was most likely not purchased in the first place. Which, given the current culture (in the US, at least), has good odds of being true. The question is, how defensible is prosecution (if somebody prosecuted on this) based on an assumption rather than proof.
In some jurisdictions (and the US seems to be gradually turning into one of these) it would be up to the seller to prove that he'd bought the book. In others (the US I grew up in) it would be up to the prosecution to prove that the book was stolen. (Returned books are supposed to be destroyed. More often they're thrown out. There are differing ruling about claiming ownership of 'garbage'.)
So I don't know how the basic question would be answered-but also don't think it would ever be prosecuted.