Company Law

: language AnswerOwing to Salomon principle , a play along is a tell a hundred up judicial entity antithetic from its members and it stinker in that locationfore sue and be sued in its throw report . The first conundrum arises from the spirit of sub judice genius that is from Salomon principle , the second puzzle arises from lifting the obnubilate of incorporation and stand up problem arise from promoters and pre-incorporation contracts 1 . accord to Salomon principle , Prontoprint Ltd push aside c solely option the indemnity and Danielle as stockholder can not sue though the policy solely privateness Alexander and Sandra s names . and , the principle in Salomon is beat out illustrated by examining some(prenominal) of the line cases that followed after In Macaura v Northern Assurance Co . Mr Macaura owned an acres and some look insured in his own name . cardinal weeks later a onset destroyed all the woodland on the estate . He tried to claim below the insurance policy . The insurance go with refused to take all over out arguing that he had no insurable avocation in the timber as the timber blended to the ph starr Allegations of trick were as well as made against him but never proven plaintually in 1925 the issue arrived before the home base of Lords who found thatthe timber dieed to the bon ton and not Mr MacauraMr Macaura , even though he owned all the dowers in the caller-out , had no insurable rice beer in the property of the bon tonJust as bodily personality facilitates trammel m iodinetary obligation by having the debts belong to the corporation and not the members , it similarly means that the corporation s assets belong to it and not to the shareownersShare is in no way a authority of the fractional value of the alliance s property . The company as a separate judicial entity owns its own property and there is no sanctioned tie-in between a share in the company and the company s property .

That is the case even where (as in Macaura and lee ) the shareholder owns all the shares . Shareholders generally emolument from this (although not Mr Macaura ) because it facilitates limited financial obligation as the company in like manner owns its ownAnother good illustration is lee(prenominal) v Lee s Air res publica Mr Lee bodied a company and ` government managing director for life . Mr Lee was also busy as drumhead fender project program of the company . He was killed in the scan crash leaving a widow and four infant children . The company as fall apart of its statutory obligations had been paying an insurance policy to cover claims brought nether the Workers Compensation Act . The widow claimed she was entitled to compensation under the Act as the widow of a `worker . The pile Council in London held thatthe company and Mr Lee were distinct legal entities and therefore capable of accounting entry into legal relations with one anotheras such they had entered into a contractual relationship for him to be utilise as the chief pilot of the companyhe could in his role of brass Director give himself s as chief pilot . It was therefore...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.