| Author |
Message |
r.p.mcmurphy
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:28 pm
Post subject: Capitalising |
|
|
'Again, it is not possible to define all acts that could be classified as
gross misconduct, as the disciplinary action taken by the company will
ultimately be determined by the circumstances of the incident.'
Should company be capitalised?
steve
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Frank Erskine
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Capitalising |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:28:55 +0100, "r.p.mcmurphy"
<redleadertwoSPACE@SPACEntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | 'Again, it is not possible to define all acts that could be classified as
gross misconduct, as the disciplinary action taken by the company will
ultimately be determined by the circumstances of the incident.'
Should company be capitalised?
Yes, if "the Company" has already been named in the article. If not, |
then it is simply generalising and the lower case would apply.
--
Frank Erskine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John of Aix
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:35 am
Post subject: Re: Capitalising |
|
|
r.p.mcmurphy wrote:
| Quote: | 'Again, it is not possible to define all acts that could be
classified as gross misconduct, as the disciplinary action taken by
the company will ultimately be determined by the circumstances of the
incident.'
Should company be capitalised?
|
If they are referring to a specific company and calling it 'the Company'
for short (instead of the whole name) as is often done in contracts,
then yes. If they are talking
about companies generally which are subject to these rules then no.
Usually the latter I would say.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in