Separate Legal Personality: Solomon V. Solomon And Co. Ltd

Under the supreme court ruling, corporations were granted corporate personhood--a term that in itself is an oxymoron. The term combines two words: corporate, meaning relating to a corporation, especially a large company or group, and personhood, meaning the quality or condition of being an individual person. One cannot be a part of a large company or group and be considered and individual person in the same aspect. Corporations are made up of individual people, who each possess the right of personhood, all making decisions based off of their own understanding of right and wrong. As Henry Thoreau said in his essay Civil Disobedience, “It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience”. The conscience of a corporation should never be called into question, but instead the conscience of those controlling the

“A corporation is an artificial person separate and distinct from its owners.” Briefly explain this statement.

It seems understandable that a business should exist as a separate legal personality as it would be impossible for an individual’s motives and goals to be perfectly in line with that of the company as is demonstrated above in Salomon. Following this theory the idea that the rights and duties of a company are not that of its members and shareholders as demonstrated in the case of Lee v Lee Air Farming .

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

This paper describes the impact of the decision made in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Brent LBC on the law and its effects on the corporate world, and the comparison between the doctrine of vicarious liability that it outlines and the doctrine of identification that was used earlier to determine the liability of corporations in cooperate crime.

Particularly when a corporation has in-house counsel, counsel may wear two hats. Not only is the counsel required to provide legal information, some with expert business sense, is asked to provide operational and directional advice. Corporate counsel usually holds more than one title; (in addition to those of General Counsel, Corporate Counsel, Associate Corporate Counsel, etc.) they may also hold the title of an Officer of the company (e.g. Executive Vice President, Senior Vice President, Vice President, Secretary, etc.) Counsel needs to be able to separate these titles to ensure that the General Counsel’s Work Product and

A corporation is an artificial person established by the law. It nurses the same rights as humans contrariwise; they are not equally responsible for their actions. A corporation cannot face the same charges a human would: if illegal actions took place. Bakan illustrates the traits of a corporation to closely resemble the traits of a psychopathic individual human being. These traits are, but not limited to: “1) unconcern for others, 2) incapable of maintaining relationships, 3) disregard for others safety/health, 4) repeated lying, 5) incapable of experiencing guilt, and 6) failure to conform to social norms.” Therefore, executive’s means for earning high returns for shareholders can be seen as a trait of a psychopath. Yet, the corporation’s attributes are not based on the qualities of the executives outside of their careers. As Bakan would say, “the people who run corporations are, for the most part, good people, moral people.”

Although doctrine of separate legal entity has the greatest importance in company law, it contains weaknesses that could be arguable. Professor Kahn-Freund described the doctrine as “calamitous” because it arise many issues, such as “How is it possible to check the one-man company and other abuse of company law?” Separate legal entity is inadequate for complex problems .

One of the largest issues in developing a career in the legal profession is diversity as there is a perceived image of the legal sector being a traditionally “white, male, middle class” profession. Harold Patrick and Vincent Kuman argue, “the concept of diversity includes acceptance and respect. It means understanding that each individual is unique and recognizing our individual differences” . This essay will examine the social class, educational and gender barriers underrepresented groups face in developing a career in the legal profession. The effectiveness of measures taken to promote diversity in England and Wales will then be evaluated. This essay will go on to ultimately conclude that the legal profession in England and Wales has become increasingly diverse over the years, although a significant lack of diversity does still exist within the upper tier of the profession.

The documentary starts off with showing the development of the contemporary business corporation, from beginning as a legal entity to then having the entitlement of having most of the legal rights of a person. Since a corporation is said to be a “person”, the documentary then was assessing the corporation as a “personality” and showed viewers everything a corporation was doing wrong in harming a real

A corporation is an artificial person established by the law. It nurses the same rights as humans contrariwise; they are not equally responsible for their actions. A corporation cannot face the same charges a human would, if illegal actions took place. Bakan illustrates the traits of a corporation to closely resemble the traits of a psychopathic individual human being. These traits are, but not limited to: “1) unconcern for others, 2) incapable of maintaining relationships, 3) disregard for others safety/health, 4) repeated lying, 5) incapable of experiencing guilt, and 6) failure to conform to social norms.” Therefore, executive’s means for earning high returns for shareholders can be seen as a trait of a psychopath. Yet, the corporation’s attributes are not based on the qualities of the executives outside of their careers. As Bakan would say, “the people who run corporations are, for the most part, good people, moral people.”

The words, “corporate entity is not imaginary or fictitious but quite real, whereas corporate personality is a fiction whose origin is to be found in the psychological tendency towards personification” gives an idea that the legal doctrine of corporate personality was built around the idea of a sovereign grant of certain attributes of personality to a definable group, which was engaged in an enterprise.

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

The decision of Salomon v. Salomon which brought about the doctrine of separate legal personality is one which has evolved over time. Over a century and still counting, the principle illustrated in Salomon, courts have are still reluctant in placing limitations on corporate personality and rejecting other approaches which pose as a greater challenge to the doctrine . From time immemorial, judicial history, lawyers and judges have reiterated that the doctrine of corporation is an intangible legal entity, without the body and soul. In Athanasian terms, the orthodox doctrine of corporation as a legal person, separate and distinct from the personality of the members who compose it, has been defined and propagated .

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.