Calciopoli or Morattopoli.. inter fake orgasm (29 Viewers)
- Thread starter gsol
- Start date
I didn't ask you to repost the Juventus statement as iv already read it.
Im asking for someone to post an offical statement that we've had our name cleared as so far all I can find is this.
Juventus claim the civil trial confirmed the club’s “non-involvement” with the Calciopoli events. http://football-italia.net/node/12689
Juventus claims court decision proved it was not involved in Calciopoli scandal. http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/86/i...-court-decision-proved-it-was-not-involved-in
Im asking for someone to post an offical statement that we've had our name cleared as so far all I can find is this.
Juventus claim the civil trial confirmed the club’s “non-involvement” with the Calciopoli events. http://football-italia.net/node/12689
Juventus claims court decision proved it was not involved in Calciopoli scandal. http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/86/i...-court-decision-proved-it-was-not-involved-in
The title of that article says that Juventus 'claimed' this confirms they had no wrong doing what he was asking and what i am still confused about is it official? you guys need to calm down and stop getting aggresive ever time someone asks a question not everything is clear to everyone right now even if it has been posted 20 times people still arent grasping what it all actually means.
"The Club was taken to the court of Naples as civilly liable entity by way of objective liability according to Art. 2049 Italian Civil Code."
which means that the court treated the club as a separate entity to Moggi's actions. We were declared not responsible or held accountable for any actions.. that's from my understanding of objective liability. That's why we were not asked to pay anything or get compensations from anyone else.
which means that the court treated the club as a separate entity to Moggi's actions. We were declared not responsible or held accountable for any actions.. that's from my understanding of objective liability. That's why we were not asked to pay anything or get compensations from anyone else.
The rule which cleared us is probably this one, called respondeat superior:
Respondeat superior (Latin: "let the master answer"; plural: respondeant superiores) is a legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment.[1] This rule is also called the "Master-Servant Rule", recognized in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.[2]
In a broader scope, respondeat superior is based upon the concept of vicarious liability.
Employer/employee relationships are the most common area wherein respondeat superior is applied, but often the doctrine is used in the agency relationship. In this, the principal becomes liable for the actions of the agent, even if the principal did not directly commit the act. There are three considerations generally:
1.Was the act committed within the time and space limits of the agency?
2.Was the offense incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities the agent is authorized to perform?
3.Was the agent motivated to any degree to benefit the principal by committing the act?
The degree to which these are answered in the affirmative will dictate the degree to which the doctrine can be applied.
---------------------
Number 1 and 3 would've seen us fucked, but I suspect that Juve were cleared due to the 2nd consideration and that Moggi had stepped out of bounds when it came to his tasks.
Respondeat superior (Latin: "let the master answer"; plural: respondeant superiores) is a legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment.[1] This rule is also called the "Master-Servant Rule", recognized in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.[2]
In a broader scope, respondeat superior is based upon the concept of vicarious liability.
Employer/employee relationships are the most common area wherein respondeat superior is applied, but often the doctrine is used in the agency relationship. In this, the principal becomes liable for the actions of the agent, even if the principal did not directly commit the act. There are three considerations generally:
1.Was the act committed within the time and space limits of the agency?
2.Was the offense incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities the agent is authorized to perform?
3.Was the agent motivated to any degree to benefit the principal by committing the act?
The degree to which these are answered in the affirmative will dictate the degree to which the doctrine can be applied.
---------------------
Number 1 and 3 would've seen us fucked, but I suspect that Juve were cleared due to the 2nd consideration and that Moggi had stepped out of bounds when it came to his tasks.
Accused
A. Leader of illegal organisaton - something like that.
B. Udinese-Brescia
F. Juventus-Lazio
G. Fiorentina-Bologna
I. Bologna-Juventus
M. Juventus-Milan
O. Cagliari-Juventus
Q. Juventus-Udinese
Z. Roma-Juventus.
Cleared
C. Siena-Juventus
D. Juventus-Chievo
E. Lecce-Juventus
N. Roma-Parma
P. Messina-Parma
R. Siena-Messina
T. Palermo - Lecce
A10. Lecce - Parma
A. Leader of illegal organisaton - something like that.
B. Udinese-Brescia
F. Juventus-Lazio
G. Fiorentina-Bologna
I. Bologna-Juventus
M. Juventus-Milan
O. Cagliari-Juventus
Q. Juventus-Udinese
Z. Roma-Juventus.
Cleared
C. Siena-Juventus
D. Juventus-Chievo
E. Lecce-Juventus
N. Roma-Parma
P. Messina-Parma
R. Siena-Messina
T. Palermo - Lecce
A10. Lecce - Parma