The Issue Of Limited Liability

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” .

In order to understand why a company would or would not disclose his contingent liabilities it is important to know exactly what a contingent liability is. As I have learned throughout all of my accounting studies a liability is simply an obligation or debt that a business owes to an individual or an organization. Now there are many liabilities that include services, payroll, notes, and accounts payable. When one of these liabilities becomes a contingent liability it means that it is something that is a potential situation at the time. Contingent liabilities depend on a future event. What this means is the company may or may

As a starting note, any mention of concurrent liability should be assumed to mean concurrently liability in tort and contract. Traditionally the distinction between contract and tort was that contract concerns the improvement of the claimant 's position, whereas tort is concerned with dealing with their position worsening. There has been dispute around concurrent liability and its ambiguity has led to varying decision in cases and statute making as Taylor puts it “the basis of concurrent liability uncertain”. This essay will argue Tort has and is extending itself beyond its traditional role due to judges presumption of morality leading to the unclear concurrent liability we see today. Whilst this concurrent liability shows some

* Limited Liability - Unlike partnerships and sole proprietorships, corporate shareholders are not liable for any of the corporation's debts.

There are three theories of liability direct, vicarious, and enterprise. Direct liability has four types that are direct one of which is the principle in the 1st degree aka "the Perpetrator" which is someone who committed the crime willing on his own accord. The second is the principle in the 2nd degree aka "the Accomplice" which is someone who assisted the assailant with the delegation of the crime while also wanting to commit the crime at the same time he/she is also present during the scene of the crime. An accessory before the Fact is not present in the area of where the crime was committed, but helped by either counseling, encouraging, or urging the delegation of a crime. The Pinkerton Rule states that all accessories are liable for predictable actions that lead to being criminalized hence the violation of the criminal agreement. Even if the accomplice is not present at the scene of a committed felony crime they are still guilty. The two aspects are the specific resolve towards committing the crime the aiding of crime or encouragement towards the committing of a crime. A death penalty is only ever enforced on those who have committed the murder. The next type is the accessory after the fact which is someone who knows he/she has committed a crime and still aid with disturbing the case like hiding the assailant away from the police for example. They will also be charged with the felony since they know they committed the crime. Relations like with family is a type of

Farrar, J. (2008). Corporate Governance: theories, principles and practice. 2nd ed. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press

In addition (Chen-Wishart n.d), notes that a company is categorized as a legal personal and operates as distinct from its shareholders. Based on these statements, Betty had not right to act on behalf of Bechdo Pty Ltd and Bechdo has the capacity to sue Betty for acting contrary to the company constitution. Based on the case study, Betty had breach the contract which existed between her and the company laws. If an act carried is outside the objects for which the company was founded to as contained in the company’s memorandum of association which is this case is the company’s constitution, then the acts are deemed to be ultra vires. In other words, the acts are beyond the capacity of the organization. In addition, contracts which are deemed ultra vires are categorized as void (Palmiter 2009, p.59). This can be referenced to Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co v Richie 1875. The doctrine of ultra vires which have deemed the contracts between Bechdo Pty Ltd and BB Ltd, Jillo Pty Ltd, and Con Development Ltd as void has been applied with the aim of protecting the interests of lenders and company shareholders. As noted by Chen-Wishart (n.d), ultra vires is necessary in protecting the interest of its shareholders who depend on objective clause of the constitution to limit the acts in which their money may be used.

Did Lennie cause the first officer's death? Distinguish between proximate cause and cause in fact. Are there any intervening causes? If so, are they superseding? Explain in detail every argument that could help Lennie and every argument that the prosecution is likely to use against him using only the concepts you learned in class.

Choosing a Corporation/Company Structure - the business structure of a company/ corporation is highly recommended, it has the flexibility to gain more capital, or credit capability and assets used as security. Based on the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) AC 22, a corporation is another legal entity with their own legal rights, duties and responsibilities separate to the individual or owner of the company (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, 2013, pp 229). The risk and consequences are one of the principal considerations of choosing a company structure (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, pp 50). Based on the “Corporate Veil” Liability is owned by a separate legal entity and not to the extent of the owner, for instance, the debt of the company is not a personal liability, but the company. This is further explained in the case below.

Contingent Liability is a condition that refers to the possibility of a future event happening and addresses the responsibility of the party liable should the event take place. In today’s real estate market both sellers and buyers may have contingencies stated in the terms and conditions for selling and purchasing a home. The most common contingent liability are guarantees to debt.

This paper will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their relationship with the Charter of Rights.

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

(63)” Limited liability is another thing that is not inherently bad. If shareholders were completely held responsible for the debts of a corporation, then nobody would want to invest in any company. Limited liability helps boost the economy by encouraging people to invest money in companies which then make products for consumers to buy. Limited liability can also be used in a bad way such as when the owners of BP were not able to be held accountable for the environmental damage and the loss of 11 lives because they ignored safety regulations to make a bigger profit. The BP oil spill is another example of corporation privatizing profits and socializing cost. BP cut costs by getting around safety regulations on their oil rig. They Saved money and increased their profit by doing this but all of that profit stayed among the BP shareholders, however when the oil rig exploded the shareholders were not forced to pay for the damages and reparations. The public was forced to pay the cost of cleaning up the gulf. The shareholders made a profit by cutting corners, but when it finally caught up with them and disaster struck, they passed the cost of it on to everyone

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.