OT Amazon deliveries.

[meow2222]

Robots rather than staff though.

NT

[Andy Burns]

no, staff as robots ...

[Nightjar]

Only to those who wish to believe otherwise, or, to be generous, are not familiar with the latest legislation. The duty was introduced in the Companies Act 2006.

Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 requires a director of a company to act in the way he considers would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. It also requires directors to act in the interests of the creditors of the company. This, effectively, means that the directors have a statutory duty to run the business as profitably as possible.

[Andrew Gabriel]

Depends on the country, but as a US company, the shareholders can sue the directors if they deliberately don't run it as profitably as possible.

[The Medway Handyman]

If the Guvmint didn't waste so much money, people wouldn't mind paying taxes.

[Tim Lamb]

I don't have any shares in Amazon. Their business model appears to utilise the tax offsets for expansion investment as well as shunting profit to the lowest tax domicile. Other existing businesses may be disadvantaged by this activity so... yes:-)

>

[Adrian]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:51:19 +0100, Nightjar Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 requires a director of a company

Yep.

Up to a point, Mr O'Leary...

There's a very strong argument that "the interests of the creditors" and "the benefit of its members" are not _always_ best served by pushing for ultimate short-term profitability. Brand reputation, long-term growth, customer service - even corporate-social responsibility - could easily be argued to be worth trading off profit for whilst still fulfilling those goals.

[Nightjar]

It might be argued that those are admirable goals, but I would think that most shareholders would prefer short term (by which I mean 10 years or less) gains.

[D.M.Chapman]

Hah, but the price has often gone up again then.

is interesting to show just how much amazon move their pricing around...

[spuorgelgoog]

That's still longer-term planning than most governments engage in (i.e. until the next election).

Owain

[Jethro_uk]

That was my understanding in the UK. During the Cadbury takeover, there was a lot of discussion about why it couldn't be stopped, or why the board couldn't reject the offer. My understanding was if the board did reject an offer which could have made money for the shareholders, then the shareholders would have grounds to sue.

Bearing in mind the shareholders aren't little old ladies who keep cats, but huge pension funds who have an obligation to *their* investors.

[Bob Eager]

I think it's more to do with whether it makes up a full van/lorry.

[Huge]

On 2014-08-12, Nightjar

[Huge]

You really *are* a moron, aren't you?

[JimK]

/ > Duh. It isnt even possible to make what they are doing illegal.

You really *are* a moron, aren't you?/q

Pots & kettles......

Jim K

[Tim Lamb]

In message , Huge writes

[charles]

[Nightjar]

[fred]

In article , D.M.Chapman writes

Very interesting site thank you.

Using an outdoor lamp example from a recent thread gives:

(lowest price £10 below current)

Even more interesting when 3rd party price box is ticked (current 3rd party price 15quid cheaper, highest price 5quid less than Amazon's cheapest and lowest price 15quid cheaper than Amazon's lowest).

[spuorgelgoog]

Any future Scottish government will probably hand out grants to cuckoo clock manufacturers to stimulate a 'Liechtenstein-style' economy.

Owain