Quote:
Originally Posted by undergroundman
To hold Tesla responsible for the acts of the main contractor seems like a nonsensical argument, no?
To put it in an analogy that everyone can relate to, if I hired a maid service and the service cheated the maid out of wages after I paid the service full price, or forced that maid to work in an unsafe house, how would I be negligent? It's up to the maid service to provide safety policies that dictate whether the maid should work in certain situations. And if they're forced to work by the maid service in spite of those policies, that's not something the home owner should be held accountable. The same spirit of the law should apply to construction.
|
This is a bad analogy.
The problem isn’t liability, the problem is breach of contract.
A more appropriate analogy to the current situation is:
The city makes a contractual deal with your business that it will deduct your taxes by a certain amount over a certain time frame provided that all your business dealings satisfy certain criteria based around a system of business ethics city leaders are attempting to normalize. You hire a subcontractor to clean your place of business, pay in full prior to the service being done, and that subcontractor does not satisfy in performance and practice the criteria laid out in your deal with the city.
Thus, you were negligent in choosing and making a business deal a contractor (which is done by contract, fwiw, hence:
contractor) that did not then ensure the same criteria were satisfied via your contract with, and oversight of, them. It was your responsibility to make sure that any and all business dealings you have satisfied certain criteria laid out in your contract with the city, and your contract with the maid cleaning service for your place of business did not satisfy that criteria. Hence, your business dealings did not satisfy that criteria. Therefore, you are in breach of your contract with the city and should lose all tax benefits.