As the rapid development of the business, Today, the company law is increasingly becoming important to protect companies’ right and regular their behaviors in the business activities. The company is particularly set up for the purpose of concerning companies and other business organizations regarding sole proprietorship, limited liability companies, unlimited liability companies, etc. According to Black’s Law Dictionary,‘a company is an association of persons interested in a common objective for industrial undertaking or other legitimate business’. Moreover, modern companies are the most profitable organizations than other forms of organization, which it highlights the importance of a complete law system. Basically, modern companies are …show more content…
Over the twentieth century, with the rapid development of companies in which have became the dominant force in UK’ economy. Thus, Act of 1948 was insufficient to address the raised problems about accountancy. In 1948 enacted another featuring Act, companies are forced to prepare the balance sheet and profit and loss account. The company Act 1977 is the 1948 extended legislation that gave shareholders more power to involve in the company;s affairs, especially, the director could be removed by the shareholders with a simple majority vote. In the case of Salmon v Salmon & Co Ltd [1896], Mr, Aron Salmon is a leather businessman who was the director of a limited company with seven shareholders, and who had the majority of shares in the company. In 1892, The limited company purchased salmon’s business by issuing him with 20,000 shares at 1 pound each, of which 10,000 pounds were debentures secured by a floating charge on the company’s asset, which meant Salmon would have priority on getting paid off before unsecured creditors in the failure of the company. However, the company fell soon that the assets were not enough to pay off the unsecured creditors after paid off the debentures of Salmon and a liquidator was appointed. So, the unsecured creditors sued Salmon and the company that they were one. In the House of Lords, they stated that Salmon did not have to pay
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” .
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
Lipton, P. & Herzberg, A. (2010). Understanding Company Law. (15th ed.). Pyrmont, NSW: Lawbook Co.
Here, the corporation want the law to acknowledge them as an individual, they want to have legal status and equal protections. Therefore, the corporations should have the same rights as natural persons. If there are any circumstances, they can sued and be sued by other parties in court. The corporations should have the equal protection and justice from the court which also apply to other people. As they also pay their taxes and even have their rules and regulation that should be followed like other people. If they violate the rules they can get penalty and be sued according to the law.
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
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
In forming a new company, the company will be subjected to a series of legal proceedings; these proceeding govern the activities and business transactions, employment and the same civil rights of the people directly related or indirectly with the company.
In this report I will be describing how legislation and accounting concepts, could affect a business company’s accounting policies. I will also be talking what Acts contain, concepts and their importance, and also accounting policies. I will be supporting my work with examples.
A corporation is an institution with a unique structure and set of imperatives that direct the action of the people within it. It is also a legal institution, one whose existence and capacity to operate depend on the law. The corporation’s legally defined mandate is to pursue, relentlessly and without exception, its own self-interest, regardless of the often harmful consequences. (Bakan. 2)
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
Some of the main effects of the Companies Act on private companies are: an individual and simplified model of Articles of Association; individual requirements for accounting and reporting; no requirement for a company secretary; no requirement for an annual meeting; and simplified rules about share capital, (companieshouse.gov.uk, 2014). The key benefits of the Companies Act for shareholders
There instances are however, difficult to predict as the reasons depend on the judges interpretation of "fairness" or "policy" or of how a particular statute should be interpreted. In the leading case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd, Salomon incorporated his boot and shoe repair business, transferring it to a company. He took all the shares of the company except six, which were held by his wife, daughter and four sons. Part of the payment for the transfer of the business was made in the form of debentures (a secured loan) issued by the company to Salomon.
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.