+1 :/

 

+1 for sure.

 

I like and liked this idea. (Ha get it? I rated it with the rating "like". xD)

 

Cant you do what your suggesting already?
Pretty sure ive seen some contracts that have been like that, quite a while back though i might add.
I dont see why not
Your still tagging the individuals and what not, though im not sure if they would have to agree to the contract to?

 

If we allow multiple people to be a contract initiator under one name, how exactly do we determine who does what in the contract? For example, let's say we have a company called "ECC Lending Partners (ELP)" and player X and Y run/own the business. Now they put up a contract where ELP pays $100,000 to a player. How exactly do we determine which player pays the $100,000 to a player? And if ELP breaches the contract, how do we determine who's liable for the breach of contract? I definitely wouldn't want to hold both players responsible for one aspect of the contract as that will just lead to unnecessary arguments over who paid what/who held up their end of the deal.

My personal view is that these so-called "corporations" on ECC should never be considered an entity in contracts or agreements as there's absolutely no legally binding contracts creating the company - As opposed to real life, where legally binding contracts make up a corporation. A company on ECC should just be a name a few friends sell goods/services under, not a full-on entity.

 

+1 this idea

I agree with @THCOOL and @UnitedStates2 here...

in an economy server I feel like it should replicate an actual business world.. being able to build companies as a WE... but in a way I agree with the fact that not everyone should be punished for something that cant be referred to a single person or something..

my idea is maybe have set job descriptions that have to be attached to documents, about responsibilities, duties, and standing in the company... that way its not necessarily a full on 10 page contract.. but each "position" or person... has their job title/description that they will be held accountable for...

As a quick example:
I want to buy a city with "Bob" we are both going to be full co-mayors (or in essence the company) but we are going to have different responsibilities... I will be responsible for all the selling of plots, and management of the members, and Bob will be responsible for prebuilds, and improving the city. we each have certain job descriptions typed out, and will know what we will be held accountable for... if a member griefs the city and nobody does anything... I will be responsible... but if the city has no prebuilds and half finished products, Bob will be responsible...

Think this will work, and wont be as much as a hassle as its believed to be.

 

You can already attach different responsibilities to different people in a contract already. He's suggesting to attach responsibilities to a company instead which is still problematic for the reasons I've stated in my post above.

 

I think what I'm tryin to say is along the lines of what your thinking but my example was poor or not explained well enough... I'm saying.. the contract between the two individuals first... so in the contract discussed by THCOOL for his business... there is first a contract between THCOOL and DeMacca stating their responsibilities, who is at fault, who is responsible for what... etc etc etc... and then when they go into business with us "clients" they refer to themseleves as "MFE" referring to the contract they signed to be a part of the same business. saying the contract with me the "client" will be accomplished by them following their contract and how it would refer to me the client.

 

I disagree with this suggestion simply because of the ramifications of having these "partnerships". Simply put, all of the parties would have to be banned when a huge scam is committed and some parties really may not be a part of that (not likely I understand). Then the whole issue of paying back players that have been scammed - what if one partner decides not to appeal, does the other partner now have to pay all of the money back? This would probably not even be possible in the amounts that are now being scammed.
I think this is the same reason that andrew has still not allowed multiple owners of spawn shops and do not see him approving this unless he would also approve that situation.
Just my .02 cents worth.
Wishing everyone the best of success!

 

What you're proposing is literally no different from the contracts system where everyone's obligations/liabilities are stated - It seems that you guys really just want to save time from typing so why not just create a thread or some kind of document stating your responsibilities and link it on the contract?

You can create a solution /yourself/. I really don't see why the server has to make a solution (which can cause problems) when you're already more than capable of solving the problem yourself.

 

Doesn't that mean companies would need validated? If you say in the contract that "EcoLoans" is the contract initiator, how do you trace EcoLoans?

I think something would need to be put in place for that side of things.

 

The answer is literally in your complaint.

However, that's it. Nothing positive nor negative.

±0