• 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. Union Carbide & Bhopal Case

    It was relatively dormant, until recently when it was used more frequently for human rights issues (Zittrain, 2001). However, the case was dismissed by US District Court (Peterson, 2009). In 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the dismissal of claims in Bano v.

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

    necessary to look at the various remedies offered to minority shareholders under it: Firstly, further reform with regard to minority shareholders has been made by sections 260-269 of the Companies Act 2006 which have now replaced the common law rules associated with the general principle laid down in Foss v Harbottle as far as they apply to derivative claims.

  1. Business Law

    2250, C.A. * Holmes V Ashford(1950) 2 ALL E.R. 76; W.N. 269, C.A. * A.C.Billings V Riden(1957) 3 ALL E.R. 1; (1958) A.C. 240, H.L. Donogbue V Stevenon (1932) A.C. 562 Dean feels that he has been unfairly dismissed; In this case, Dean, the duty manager was fired on a short notice; he's been working with Uxbridge Mill House Fitness centre for two years now.

  2. Corporation Law - Case Study Stately Funeral Homes Ltd

    Advise on the following issues: (1) Did Morticia act with improper purpose, in breach of general law or statutory duties, or fail to disclose her interests in the purchase of Highway to Paradise (H2P)? What are the consequences? (7 marks) (2) Could Simple Serenity obtain a court order for Gomez and Thing to account for their profits in F2P?

  1. Company law - directors duties

    However the new law thus makes it less onerous for directors seeking the conflict of interest to be authorised. S172 provides that a conflict may be authorised either by the members or by the directors. This can be seen to be a very radical structural change.19 Furthermore this can be said to clarify the law.

  2. Business Law Assignment. Find the case of Archbolds (Freightage) Ltd. v S. Spanglett ...

    (1 mark)[4] - The two terms which are implied for contract of sale by sample are: 1. The bulk has to correspond to the sample in quality. 2. The goods have to be with no defects, which will be visible on reasonable inspection of the sample.

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

    involved mining in South Africa, as well as the marketing of Asbestos (a lethal material that if inherited can cause serious illnesses, such as malignant cancer). The marketing of this lethal substance, caused the company to come under legal action in the United States of America, where the claimants (plaintiffs at that time)

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

    identified in respect of the company where the fault or privity existed in the mind of a person who was ?the directing mind and will? of the company. However, the courts have generally been reluctant to impose tortious liability on those behind the corporate (Williams v.

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