RE: Re: [OT] Friday dilemma...

["Dean Barrett" <dean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for that Mark

It was the addressing thing i had stressed to him, if it has the company
name on it - it becomes company business regardless of the P & C on it.

I will try the legal helpline on Monday.


Thanks



Dean.


_____

From: mark_harrison_uk2 [mailto:mph@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 03 September 2004 22:06
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: [ukha_d] Re: [OT] Friday dilemma...


--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Dean Barrett" <dean@w...> wrote:
> Mick
>
> He has a director title but no share holding, so no voting power etc.
He
> gets director perks/money etc. but no div's
>
>
>
> Dean.

Dean,

Be very careful on this one. If someone is genuinely a Director of the
company, then they have a fiduciary authority and responsibility
irrespective of their share holding.

For example, I'm a non-exec of one of my clients, and I -could- commit
them to all kinds of things. The fact that they'd hold an EGM as soon
as they found out and fire me doesn't mean that they wouldn't easily
be able to renege on any contract I'd signed as a Director. After all,
the contract would have been signed by a Director at the time of
signing, and it is unreasonably to expect that the counterparty to any
client would have to enquire whether someone listed as a Director
actually had the authority!

The issue of post is one that, really, needs legal advice. Your
insurer probably has a legal helpline that can sort out exactly this
kind of thing for you.

As a layman, I would suspect that the nature of the addressing might
be important.

If he gets a letter addressed to:

- Fred Jones,
- Commercial Director, Joe Bloggs Limited
- Bloggs House, Acacia Avenue
- Yourtown

... then this is a letter to him qua his position. As such, it is not
unreasonable for an officer of the company to open the letter if Fred
is absent, or for that matter to comply with your own QA requirements.

If, on the other hand, he gets a letter addressed to:

- Fred Jones,
- Bloggs House, Acacia Avenue
- Yourtown

... this there is an argument that this might be personal mail. If you
have a policy that states he may not use the company's premises to
receive such, then he may be in breach of that. However, that does not
give you the right to breach his right to privacy.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Mark