Business Relations : Salomon Vs. Salomon & Co

The business entities of corporations and partnerships share many similarities, however key difference exist, primarily in terms of formation, taxes and liability. This section will largely address the issue of liability, in terms of the effects of damages, disclosure requirements and personal liability for both corporations and partnerships. Additionally Amazon will be examined as a partnership rather than a corporation to further illustrate these differences.

I will be relating the type of business, purpose and ownership of the two contrasting organisations. The two organisations that I will be choosing are: Oxfam and Sainsbury’s.

This essay will explain the concepts of separate personality and limited liability and their significance in company law. The principle of separate personality is defined in the Companies Act 2006(CA) ; “subscribers to the memorandum, together with such other persons as may from time to time become members of the company are a body corporate by the name contained in memorandum.” This essentially means that a company is a separate legal personality to its members and therefore can itself be sued and enter into contracts. This theory was birthed into company law through the case of Salomon v Salomon and Co LTD 1872. This case involved a company entering liquidation and the unsecured creditors not being able to claim assets to compensate them. The issue in this case was whether Mr Salomon owed the money or the company did. In the end, the House of Lords held that the company was not an agent of Mr Salomon and so the debts were that of the company thus creating the “corporate Veil” .

Suppose that Katherine, Brianna, and Paige have formed a limited partnership to operate a video arcade. Katherine is the general partner. She has contributed $2,000 and her time to get the operation running. Brianna and Paige, the limited partners, have each contributed $3,000. After one year of operation, the arcade has debts of $10,000, and the three partners decide to discontinue their business and the limited partnership. Brianna and Paige want their investment returned to them. Who should Katherine, who is winding up the business, pay first, Brianna and Paige, or the creditors? How much will Brianna and Paige receive? How about Katherine?

The British Heart Foundation is the UK’s Number 1 Heart Charity. Their vision “is a world where people don’t die prematurely from heart disease.” They were founded in 1961 by a group of medical specialists who wanted to give money to fund extra research to find out the causes of heart diseases. They were concerned about the number of people with Cardiovascular Heart Disease who were dying prematurely. They have been going for 53 years and have been helping people since then. They have been taking part in all events but the main one which is coming up in September is the Oxford to Cambridge Bike Ride.

Tomasic, R. Jackson, J. & Woellner, R. (2002). Corporations Law: Principles, Policy and Process. 4th ed. Sydney: Butterworths

Salomon v Salomon and Co. Ltd (1897) AC 22 - when Aron Salomon sold his business to Salomon and Co. Ltd. Company, where he was still the major shareholder and some of his family was also a member. He also received a debenture as part of the payment for a secured term. But when the company has gone into liquidation during the 1890’s some argued that his

Effective immediately, every employee will be required to use the name Sawyer-Moore and Associates in every communication with a debtor or anyone who contact you on any of the RingCentral #s.

Salamon v. Salamon & Co. Ltd has a significance principle that has been recognised universally. Refer to s16(5) in The Act, once company is registered, the new company is a juristic person that separate from its members. Likewise, company has the full responsible on its own debts and contractual

Coca Cola is a soft fizzy drink sold in every store throughout the world. It is produced by The Coca Cola Company of Atlanta in Georgia, and is often called as Coke.

This report is to compare the financial situations of two companies in the restaurant industry, Darden Restaurants Inc. of Florida and Brinker International Inc. of Texas. The report will provide a detailed analysis and summary of several things including financial analysis, industry history and analysis, both companies history and analysis, vertical and horizontal analysis, and the creditworthiness of each company.

The concept of a company being a separate legal entity is the most striking illustration in separating the company from its owners. A paramount principle of corporate law is that no shareholder or member of a company is made liable for the obligations incurred by such incorporations A company is different from its members in the eyes of law. In continuations to this the opposite also holds true in the sense that neither can the company be held liable for the acts of its members. It is a fundamental distinction that a company is distinct from its members.

There is no clear framework of the rules that would cover the contingencies of a ruling to pierce the corporate veil Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd. The corporate Veil usually protects owners and shareholders from being held liable for corporate duties. Yet again a decision made by the court to lift that veil and would place the liability on shareholders, owners, administrators, executives and officers of the company without ownership interest. The purpose of this essay is to conduct an analysis on the concept of lifting the corporate veil and to review the different views on its fairness and equitability to present a better understanding of the notion, the methods used was throughout researching the numerous scholars views on the subject, case law and statutes examples, and the evidence provided by the empirical study of Ramsay & Noakes. When we discuss the lifting the corporate veil the first case that pops out is the case of Salomon V A. Salomon & Co Ltd, since the decisions of applying the corporate veil were first formed as a consequence of this case. The idea covers all of company law and distinguishes that a company is a separate legal entity from its members and directors. Furthermore, spencer (2012); have indicated that one of the core principles that followed the decision in Salomon v Salomon was the wide acceptance one man company’s. However In order to form a

This doctrine has been seen as a “two- edged sword,” reason being that at a general level while it was seen as a good decision in that by establishing that corporations are separate legal entities, Salomon 's case endowed the company with the entire requisite attributes with which to become the powerhouse of capitalism. At a particular level, however, it was a bad decision. By extending the benefits of incorporation to small private enterprises, Salomon 's case has promoted fraud and the evasion of legal obligations.

Corporation origin from the Latin word Corpus which means body. It is formed by a group of people and has separate rights and liability from those individual. In any means, corporation exists independently from its owner and this principle is called the doctrine of separate personality. Doctrine of separate personality is the basic and fundamental principle in a Company Law. This principle outline the legal relationship between company and its members. Company’s assets belong to the company not the shareholders as assets are the equity for creditors. Company must use up all its assets to pay off the creditors if it became insolvent. The same applies to the corporation’s debts. For limited liabilities company, the shareholder liability is limited which means that the shareholder is restricted to the number of shares they paid and not personally liable for the corporation’s debts. If the company does not have enough equity to pay off debts, the creditors cannot come after the shareholders. However, limited liability company can be very powerful when in hands who do fraud and on defeating creditors’ claims. Courts then can ignore the doctrine for exception cases and lifting the corporate veil. Lifting the corporate veil is a situation where courts put aside limited liability and hold a corporation’s shareholders or directors personally liable for the corporation’s debts.