Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What was the decision on Salomon v Salomon
Business Law II
Business Law II
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What was the decision on Salomon v Salomon
A corporation under Company law or corporate law is specifically referred to as a "legal person"- as a subject of rights and duties that is capable of owning real property, entering into contracts, and having the ability to sue and be sued in its own name. In other words, a corporation is an artificial person that in most instances is legally treated as a person, and empowered with the attributes to own its own property, execute contracts, as well as ability to sue and be sued. One of the main motivations for forming a corporation or company is the limited liability it offers its shareholders. By this doctrine (limited liability), a shareholder can only lose only what he or she has contributed as shares to the corporate entity and nothing more. The case of Salomon V. Salomon & Co., commonly referred to as the Salomon case, is both the foundational case and precedence for the doctrine of corporate …show more content…
Nor are the [shareholders], as members, liable in any shape or form, except to the extent and in the manner provided for by the Act."
In summary, the rule in the Salmon case that upon incorporation, a company is generally considered to be a new legal entity separate from its shareholders has currently continued to be the law in courts or common law jurisdictions. The case is of particular significance in company law, firstly; it establishes the canon that when a company acts, it does so in its own name and right and not merely an agent of its owner, secondly; it establishes the important doctrine that shareholders under common law are not liable for the company’s debts beyond their initial capital
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
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
Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerned with the qualified privilege of employers. In this case Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,”
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
A corporate owner is an Individual or entity who owns a business entity to profit from the successful operations of the company. Generally, has decision making abilities and first right to
Nursefinders argues that the causes of action based on respondent superior liability failed because Drummond was a special employee of Kaiser or acted outside the course and scope of her employment. they also asserted that no triable issues listed on Montague’s negligence claim and the lack of cable cause of action precluded a derivative loss of consortium claim.
Frye v. United States and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals are both legal decisions that set forth standards as they pertain to the admissibility of scientific or forensic evidence, and the admissibility of expert witness testimony. Both cases deal with the admissibility of evidence in judicial proceedings, and prevent prosecutors from abusing the use of expert witnesses and testimony. Due to a loophole that dismisses recent scientific advances when applying the Frye Rule, the Supreme Court revisited Frye, and “took the occasion to issue guidelines for deciding the admissibility of scientific evidence” (Gaensslen, Harris, & Henry, 2008, p. 53). The decision resulted in a five-prong approach called the Daubert Standard.
A corporation was originally designed to allow for the forming of a group to get a single project done, after which it would be disbanded. At the end of the Civil War, the 14th amendment was passed in order to protect the rights of former slaves. At this point, corporate lawyers worked to define a corporation as a “person,” granting them the right to life, liberty and property. Ever since this distinction was made, corporations have become bigger and bigger, controlling many aspects of the economy and the lives of Americans. Corporations are not good for America because they outsource jobs, they lie and deceive, and they knowingly make and sell products that can harm people and animals, all in order to raise profits.
The example case I chose for breach of confidentiality is Berger v. Sonneland. On July, 1 1993 Mrs. Suzan Berger went to see her doctor, Dr. John Sonneland for a consultation. She said she was having some health problems. She complained of stomach pain, chronic diarrhea, dumping syndrome, throwing up and an over 40 pound weight loss. She stated that her symptoms began at the age of 22 and now at the age of 27 she had endured multiple surgeries. Mrs. Berger told Dr. Sonneland that she was taking a few different drugs, including Tylox, a narcotic used to control pain. Mrs. Berger was consulting with Dr. Sonneland for a new prescription of a narcotic pain medication. Mrs. Berger stated she gave Dr. Sonneland a written release to contact her previous doctor, Dr. Federic E. Eckhauser, at the University of Michigan Hospital in Ann Arbor to get her medical history, but did not have Dr. Hoheim, her former husband, and a past doctor she had seen. She also did not give Dr. Sonneland permission to contact him. She
According to Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt (2010) “modern corporation law emerged only in the last 200 years, ancestors of the modern corporation existed in the times of Hammurabi, ancient Greece, and the Roman Empire. As early as 1248 in France, privileges of incorporation were given to mercantile ventures to encourage investment for the benefit of society. In England, the corporate form was used extensively before the 16th century. In the late 18th century, general incorporation statutes emerged in the United States” (p. 1009).
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.
During the eighteenth century, corporations had fewer powers that we do now. They did not have limited liability. They were chartered for a limited period of time, (10 or 20 years), and for a specific public purpose only, such as building a bridge. Corporations were viewed differently in early times. They were thought to be good ways to serve the public good. But over the time, people forgot that corporations are starting to get so powerful and that they need to be strongly controlled. Also, corporations began to gain more power than the wealthy elite. Corporations like the East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company had been the rulers of America. So when the constitution was written, corporations were left out of the Constitution. From the past, corporations had been looking for a way to control state regulation and taxation. They did, by being able to control it by having the federal government say you can't discriminate, when discrimination meant any rule that applied just to corporations, such as railroads. Because Corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
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.