• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Salomon v. A Salomon & Co. Ltd [1897] AC 22 is the most important decision ever made by the English courts in Relation to company law.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Name: JI KE Department: International Finance College Beijing Normal University Faculty of Business, School of Law Kingston University Lecturer: Mr. John Tribe, Kingston University Commercial Law Assignment Due Date: Dec 10 A: Salomon v. A Salomon & Co. Ltd [1897] AC 22 is the most important decision ever made by the English courts in Relation to company law. The fundamental concept to become familiar with when commencing a business is the idea that the business has a legal personality in its own right, particularly when it assumes the form of a Close Corporation, or a Limited Liability Company. This essentially means that if one commences business as a Close Corporation, or as a Limited Liability Company, then the Corporation or Company is a legal entity with distinct legal personality separate to that of the owners, members, or shareholders.(2) As a separate entity, the company is distinct from the directors, employees and shareholders. And the distinction has been rightly insisted by the law that it should be duly observed: Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd [1961] AC 12. "In particular the company does not act as the agent of the directors and, in general, they do not incur personal ...read more.

Middle

"Legal Proposition: Extension of Salomon to owner as employee."(3) But with the development of the company and social economic, the principal of Salomon provided the shareholders a shelter to evade the crack-down of the law. Thus the British courts started to "lift the Vail" on the purpose of fairness and justice since the case of Smith, Stone, &Knight in 1939, instead of caring about the principal part on law, they focused on the factual transactions. Lifting the Vail is existed as an exception of Salomon' principal. The relevant cases are shown as DHN Food Distributors Ltd and others v. London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1976] 3 All ER 402 , Bank of Tokyo v. Karoon [1987] AC 45N and Adams v. Cape Industries plc [1990] BCC 786. In the judgments of Standard Chartered Bank (Respondents) v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Appellants) and Standard Chartered Bank (Appellants) v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and Others and Another (Respondents) and Others), Saloman v Saloman Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 was described that companies have been recognized as separate legal entities to their shareholders, their directors and their employees. ...read more.

Conclusion

This is not a necessary characteristic of a commercial corporation. Indeed even for some time after the Limited Liability Act 1855 there were major trading entities which had been incorporated but the investors in which were exposed to unlimited liability for the corporation's debts. This could, and not infrequently did, result in the investors' ruin. By reducing and defining the potential risk to investors, limited liability opens the way for modern companies to raise the necessary capital for their business, either privately or on the stock market. For this reason, only in exceptional circumstances does the law allow a creditor of the company to pierce the veil of incorporation and fix the shareholders with personal liability: Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. The statements above were all belonging to "lift the Vail". It was caused by principal of Salomon, though it was cited as an exception, it was still in relation to Salomon' principal. The case of Solomon is important, not only because it establishes the principle of separate legal personality and provides the reference to subsequent cases, but also because the significant development of the initial principal-lift the Vail, which is more fair and used to solve many problems. Internet sites 1. www.judgement of houselords.com 2. www.law -online.com 3. www.unbf.ca.cn ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Commercial Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Commercial Law essays

  1. The doctrine laid down in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd has be watched ...

    There is no reason why a company cannot be the agent of its controlling shareholder, however, and, in such cases, the shareholder, as principal, is liable for debts contracted by the company as his agent under the normal rules of contract.

  2. Company Law, s.33 CA '06

    Some clarity can be brought to the discussion when we understand that the contract created by s.33 does not conform to normal contractual principles, there is a constant tension created between the parties, the ideal being a constant balance, it needs to be remembered that the company as a separate

  1. The academic debate concerning on the directors duties is one of the oldest issues ...

    where four of the directors planned to set up a new business competing with their new owners". In Extrasure Travel Insurances Ltd v Scattergood47, "on when incompetent but honest intentions amount to breach of fiduciary duty and the test for determining when a director has acted in the best interests

  2. Company law - directors duties

    duty.21 The common law duty was shown in the case of Regal (Hastings) Ltd-v- Gulliver [1942] 1 ALL ER 378 where it was held that, even if the director 's profit would not have accrued to the company, he must still account for it if the opportunity to make it

  1. Coporate Law and Limited Liability. There are certain circumstances in which courts will have ...

    general partnership could be held responsible for all the debts of the corporation. As the capital needed to finance the largest projects grew, and along with it the necessity of raising money, investors were reluctant to invest because of the risk involved in essentially guaranteeing the entire debt of the

  2. Commercial Law Coursework

    Directors found guilty of wrongful trading could also be further penalised under s.215(4), with the courts having the power to determine that any debts owed by the company to the director "rank in priority after all other debts owed by the company and after interest on those debts".

  1. Company Law Assignment. I will identify the theory of a corporate personality, demonstrate ...

    corporate veil was the case of Jones v Lipman (see appendix 3), where the facts of the case introduced a clear company incorporated to be a clear ?facade? or ?scheme? to enable the promoter/owner to avoid a pre-existing obligation. The case facts are that the defendant, Mr Lipman was contracted

  2. Separated legal personality means shareholders and directors of the company are not liable for ...

    in control of it if the company was used as a device or façade to conceal the true facts thereby avoiding or concealing any liability of those individual(s)”. Mere façade and sham were also successfully used to lift the corporate veil in a number of other cases such as Gilford v Horne and Jones v Lipman (1962).

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work