• 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 - directors duties

    The new Companies Act 2006 and Directors' Duties. Finance and Credit Law.6 (3) Mukwiri, J. (2008) Directors' duties in takeover bids and English Company Law. International Company and Commercial Law Review.19 (9), 281-289 The Company Law Review, Modern Law Review for an competitive economy: final report.

  1. Limited liability

    Under a limited liability regime, shareholders have the opportunity to effect uncompensated transfer of risks to creditors and thus it creates incentives for excessive allocations of social resources to risky enterprises. Shareholders know that they will reap all the benefits and that they will not bear the risk of failure.

  2. Company law - case study on setting up a business.

    This would not have been adequately achieved through a text message. Once the meeting has been convened the matters of 'quorum, voting, proxies, the position of the chairman and the recording of minutes' (Keenan et al, Company Law, "Meetings and Resolutions", pg 388)

  1. Veil of Incorporation. Under the Companies Act 2006[1], the effect of registering a ...

    The journal examines whether it can be assumed that when the courts chose to ignore the veil, it is for the reason of preventing injustice, which would follow Creasey. In Adams v Cape Industries plc26 however, it was argued that a stricter approach should be taken where the veil is

  2. 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

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

    However, in practice, most cases are not factually straight-forward, as seen in Salomon, and the courts seem to be reluctant to recognise the existence of a principle-agent relationship. There are occasional successes such as in Smith Stone Knight where Atkinson J.

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

    The subject matter of this source is: 1. Existing or future goods 2. Goods which have perished 3. Goods perished before sale but after agreement to sell. http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1979/ukpga_19790054_en.pdf c) What two terms are implied by Section 15 of this Act in the case of a contract for sale by sample?

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