Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The principle of corporate legal personality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The principle of corporate legal personality
Companies are enterprises, also the legal person, so companies are business entity. It’s also as the business entity, different with other non-business legal person in sociality, for example: Swansea University and Morrison Hospital. Company as business entity, the distinction with non-business legal person is business is profitable legal person; A company is an artificial person. Once it is incorporated by complying with the prescribed procedure, its come into being and is a separate legal entity from its members and officers. This principle distinguishes a company from a partnership. Besides of that, the importance of principles of separate legal entity was first established in the landmark case of Salmon v Salomon & Co Ltd (1897) and the principal of separate legal entity is also enshrined in section 16(5) of the Companies Act 1965. Additionally, the effect of corporate personality is to create a “veil of incorporation” between the shareholders and the company, preventing recourse to the shareholders for the debts of the company. By the way, given that it is impossible to envisa...
Corporation – “A business organization that exists as a legal entity and provides limited liability to its owners.” (Longenecker, Petty, Palich, Hoy, Pg. 205) The main advantage of a corporation is that the business liability falls onto this entity instead of the individuals that own it. The disadvantages of this organization are found mostly in its formation. A corporation is expensive to create and requires compliance with state
On September 12, 2014, Denise Rockett filed a complaint against Eugene Nigro, Esq. Nigro was reportedly negligent when handling legal matters in her late husband’s estate. Specifically, the complainant alleges that Denise, as Executrix of her late husband’s estate, was intentionally excluded from major decisions, not properly compensated, and deprived of control over their properties. Nigro allegedly breached his fiduciary obligation and violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 1.4(b), 1.7(b), and 8.4(c).
This is a complex case, involving multiple parties and several variables that need to be examined thoroughly. The parties mentioned include Knarles operator of the facility maintenance company, his son Barkley, their employee, a licensed plumber, and Mr. Chetum. Although in the end Chetum is suing the facilities maintenance firm for a breach of contract, all factors must be examined to determine proper fault.
When discussing the concept of contract law, there exist two bodies of legal rules that may apply to the contract. These bodies are the common law of contracts and Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code or the UCC. The common law of contracts is court made and is constantly changing, but the UCC is required in every state within the U.S.A. It is important to know which one to use and when, as well as what the differences between them are.
Two main sources of law in the common law system are statutes and judicial decisions. The UK’s law inherited from the authority of courts which developed over the centuries, following the ‘stare decisis’ doctrine which built the stability and certainty in the law. This law survived for over a thousand years even in the absence of the statutory regulations in some areas. However, the Parliament as the supreme law-making body has the power to override or change current case law through the legislation but its power has been significantly weakened since signing the European Community Act in 1972. The membership covers some important areas as communication, trade and the human rights therefore influencing domestic law significantly. (OU, 2014, Unit 4)
There are so many issues in regards to real estate. One of the most concerning issues seems to be Eminent Domain. Eminent Domain is the power of a national state or government taking a private property for public use. An example would be building roads, schools, malls, or even highways. Is Eminent Domain really being constantly abused? I believe so since i decided to write about this issue. The land can be taken with no argument as long as it is used for the "public good". That makes it ok some how. When the property is taken the government pays you a price that they believe is fair market value. Sometimes they are paying them more. People are practically being forced off of their land so their homes can be replaced by more expensive homes and bigger
According to Corporation Act 2001 s124(1), it illustrates that ‘’A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual both in and outside the jurisdiction” . As it were, company as a legal individual must be freely with all its capital contribution shall embrace liability for its legal actions and obligations of the company’s shareholders is limited to its investment to the company. This ‘separate legal entity’ principle was established in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1987] as company was held to have conducted the business as a legal person and separate from its members. It demonstrated that the debt of company is belonged to the company but not to the shareholders. Shareholders have only right to participate in managing but not in sharing the company property. Besides ,the Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] demonstrates that the distinction between the shareholders and company assets. It means that even Mr Macaura owned almost all the shares in the company, he had no insurable interest in the company’s asset. The other recent case is the Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] which illustrates that the distinct legal entities between employee ad director allows Mr.Lee function in dual capacities. It resulted that the corporation can contract with the controlling member of the corporation.
Piercing the Corporate Veil Since the establishment in Salomon v Salomon, the separate legal personality has been long recognised in English law for centuries, that is to say, a limited liability company has its own legal identity distinct from its shareholders or directors. However, in certain circumstances the courts may be prepared to look behind the company at the actions of the directors and shareholders. This is known as "piercing the corporate veil". There are numerous cases concerning the "piercing the corporate veil", among which, Jones v Lipman[1] was a typical case. Lipman sold land to Jones by a written contract but refused to complete the sale because of another good deal, instead he offered damages for breach of contract.
Given the situation, as manager of the office, Sara must talk to Nell and tell her that she can not allow her to stay doing her work because she is not fit to comply with them due to her drunken state. However, you must ask her to leave the office and return the next day when she is already sober to talk about the particular situation.
This report gives the brief overview of the concept of corporate governance, its evolution and its significance in the corporate sector. The report highlights various key issues and concerns that are faced by the organizations while effectively implementing and promoting Corporate Governance.
As a consequence of the separate legal entity and limited liability doctrines within the UK’s unitary based system, company law had to develop responses to the ‘agency costs’ that arose. The central response is directors’ duties; these are owed by the directors to the company and operate as a counterbalance to the vast scope of powers given to the board. The benefit of the unitary board system is reflected in the efficiency gains it brings, however the disadvantage is clear, the directors may act to further their own interests to the detriment of the company. It is evident within executive remuneration that directors are placed in a stark conflict of interest position in that they may disproportionately reward themselves. The counterbalance to this concern is S175 Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) this acts to prevent certain conflicts arising and punishes directors who find themselves in this position. Furthermore, there are specific provisions within the CA 2006 that empower third parties such as shareholders to influence directors’ remuneration.
In effect Salomon's principle as confirmed by Macaura v Northern Assurance Co. and Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd. helps form an image of a corporation as a 'depersonalised conception'[5], an object that is 'cleansed and emptied of its shareholders. '[6] Yet the concept of an incorporated company as a separate legal person causes some difficulties, for surely all 'legal personality is in a sense fiction'.[7] Questions soon arise ... ... middle of paper ... ...
1a) Separate legal entity refers to the type of legal entity that is detached from its accountability. A company is considered an artificial person, when it’s incorporated by complying with the prescribed procedure, that’s when it comes into being a separate legal entity from its members and officers. The importance of separate legal entity was first established in the landmark case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd (1897), and it was well accepted as part of Malaysian law. In section 169 of the Companies Act 1965 provides that the directors a holding company are to ensure that the company’s accounts and those of its subsidiaries are consolidated. Therefore, even though a person holds almost all shares and debentures and controlled the company’s
In company law, registered companies are complicated with the concepts of separate legal personality as the courts do not have a definite rule on when to lift the corporate veil. The concept of ‘Separate legal personality’ is created under the Companies Act 1862 and the significance of this concept is being recognized in the Companies Act 2006 nowadays. In order to avoid personal liability, it assures that individuals are sanctioned to incorporate companies to separate their business and personal affairs. The ‘separate legal personality’ principle was further reaffirmed in the courts through the decision of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd. , and it sets the rock in which our company law rests which stated that the legal entity distinct from its
The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality The principle of separate corporate personality has been firmly established in the common law since the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd[1], whereby a corporation has a separate legal personality, rights and obligations totally distinct from those of its shareholders. Legislation and courts nevertheless sometimes "pierce the corporate veil" so as to hold the shareholders personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation. Courts may also "lift the corporate veil", in the conflict of laws in order to determine who actually controls the corporation, and thus to ascertain the corporation's true contacts, and closest and most real connection. Throughout the course of this assignment I will begin by explaining the concept of legal personality and describe the veil of incorporation. I will give examples of when the veil of incorporation can be lifted by the courts and statuary provisions such as s.24 CA 1985 and incorporate the varying views of judges as to when the veil can be lifted.