The Doctrine Of Corporate Personality

The typical business man involved in corporate America works anywhere from six to ten hours per day. Phil, “the Company Man” worked six days a week sometimes until eight or nine at night, making himself a true workaholic. Using his life story before he died Goodman is able to convey her liking toward Phil but her dislike of what the business world has turned him into. Not only does Goodman use a number of rhetorical devices but she also uses Phil’s past as well as the people who were once in Phil’s life to get her message across to her reader. Ellen Goodman sarcastically creates the obituary of a man who dedicated his life to his job and the company he worked for. Goodman uses anaphora, satire, diction,

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 .

The thesis deals with the above concepts and discusses how the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) modified the law, particularly, by extending the legal capacity of a company and extinguishing or modifying the above rules which had previously restricted a company's ability

Courts use a legal fiction of treating corporations as artificial persons in order to allow the law to apply to corporations as a whole. This concept actually began with ancient Rome, where a business was considered to be a single, non-human body made up of many people. In the United States, being treated as an artificial person means that corporations have many of the same duties, responsibilities and protections as

The ideas that corporations are viewed as people in the eyes of the law seems like a farfetched idea. However, with closer examination one cannot help but wonder if this is truly becoming the case. Since the 1950’s the rights of corporations have been expanding through multiple court cases that have charted the way for more recent cases like Citizens United v. FEC and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores . To better understand the notion that corporations are sometimes viewed as people it is important to understand the definition of a corporation. In the dictionary, a corporation is defined as a number of persons united in one body for a purpose . Even though it is hard for many to view a corporation as a “person”, it is undeniable that corporations

Woodward, S., Bird, H. & Sievers, S. (2005). Corporations Law in Principle 7th ed. Pyrmont, NSW: Lawbook Co.

“Corporations are said to be “creatures of statute;” they exist because state laws allow human beings to organize themselves into entities that separate ownership and management functions as the outline above delineates. The business rule is there a presumption that making a business decision, the offices act in good faith with the belief that their actions is what is best for the company (Halbert/Ingulli, 2012 pg. 31).”

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

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

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

Traits associated to a psychopath include irresponsibility, manipulation, grandioseness, lack of empathy, asocial tendencies, inability to feel remorse, refusal to take responsibility for one's actions and superficial relations with others. Modern day corporations display every one of the previously listed characteristics. Is it right that an institution, whose power now rivals that of the State that once created it to seek the better welfare of its citizens, display the psychological traits of a dangerous personality disorder? Many say no: there is a rising discomfort with the corporation and its pervasion into every sphere of human life and it is this uneasiness that has prompted many academics to further study the corporation and 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

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.