The benefitted-part was never in question. Juve did benefit.
However, three cumulative conditions much be met in order to become liable on the grounds of objective liability.
1) The person in question must have been either an employee or been given assignments. Check.
2) Employer etc. must have benefitted. Check.
3) His culpable actions must lie within reasonable bounds of his tasks, mandate etc. This is where the dispute is.
Now, objective liabilty rules differ a little bit from country to country, but this is basically what they look like.
Red is onto something in his argumentation, but the "high up"-argument is still not precise enough, as focus primarily must be focused on the connection between Moggi's role and tasks. But of course, employees etc. who are "higher up" in a company, organization etc. will have more tasks and more responsibility than lower level employees, so he raises a good point. But it still doesn't hit the bullseye.
The court found that Moggi had gone outside of his tasks so that Juve wasn't liable on grounds of objective liability.
If that question was to be tried again, it wouldn't be certain to stick as it is. I think Juve was damn near objective liability in this case.
Red is saying that this "should" have been the case, which I think is going a little too far, because Moggi's role had nothing whatsoever to do with getting in touch with referee designators. But it is possible that another court would rule in favor of what Red is suggesting.
Personally, I think it's more likely that the verdict is gonna stick and that Juve will not be held responsible on grounds of objective liability. There are arguments for and against Moggi having acted within his mandate, but to me, what he did, is still outside of it.
However, three cumulative conditions much be met in order to become liable on the grounds of objective liability.
1) The person in question must have been either an employee or been given assignments. Check.
2) Employer etc. must have benefitted. Check.
3) His culpable actions must lie within reasonable bounds of his tasks, mandate etc. This is where the dispute is.
Now, objective liabilty rules differ a little bit from country to country, but this is basically what they look like.
Red is onto something in his argumentation, but the "high up"-argument is still not precise enough, as focus primarily must be focused on the connection between Moggi's role and tasks. But of course, employees etc. who are "higher up" in a company, organization etc. will have more tasks and more responsibility than lower level employees, so he raises a good point. But it still doesn't hit the bullseye.
The court found that Moggi had gone outside of his tasks so that Juve wasn't liable on grounds of objective liability.
If that question was to be tried again, it wouldn't be certain to stick as it is. I think Juve was damn near objective liability in this case.
Red is saying that this "should" have been the case, which I think is going a little too far, because Moggi's role had nothing whatsoever to do with getting in touch with referee designators. But it is possible that another court would rule in favor of what Red is suggesting.
Personally, I think it's more likely that the verdict is gonna stick and that Juve will not be held responsible on grounds of objective liability. There are arguments for and against Moggi having acted within his mandate, but to me, what he did, is still outside of it.
Buy on AliExpress.com
