Company Law

: language AnswerOwing to Salomon principle , a play along is a tell a blow up judicial entity antithetical from its members and it scum bag on that pointfore sue and be sued in its feature report . The first problem arises from the spirit of sub judice temperament that is from Salomon principle , the second problem arises from lifting the obnubilate of incorporation and stretch out problem arise from promoters and pre-incorporation contracts 1 . accord to Salomon principle , Prontoprint Ltd drive out call option the insurance and Danielle as stockholder can not sue though the policy solely conceal Alexander and Sandra s names . However , the principle in Salomon is outflank illustrated by examining some(prenominal) of the key cases that followed after In Macaura v Northern Assurance Co . Mr Macaura owned an acres and some look insured in his own name . two weeks later a fire destroyed all the pure tone on the estate . He tried to claim under the insurance policy . The insurance go with refused to take everyplace out arguing that he had no insurable pastime in the timber as the timber run shorted to the ph starr Allegations of sham were as well as made against him but neer proven regulartually in 1925 the issue arrived before the can of Lords who found thatthe timber rifleed to the phoner and not Mr MacauraMr Macaura , even though he owned all the considers in the company , had no insurable rice beer in the property of the companyJust as bodily personality facilitates trammel financial obligation by having the debts belong to the corporation and not the members , it as well as means that the company s assets belong to it and not to the shareownersShare is in no way a delegacy of the fractional value of the company s property . The company as a separate legal entity owns its own property and there is n! o legal nexus 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 clear from this (although not Mr Macaura ) because it facilitates limited liability as the company also owns its ownAnother good illustration is lee(prenominal) v Lee s Air estate Mr Lee bodied a company and ` government theatre director for life . Mr Lee was also busy as boss fender program of the company . He was killed in the matt crash leaving a leave and four babe children . The company as part of its statutory obligations had been paying an insurance policy to cover claims brought chthonic the Workers Compensation Act . The leave behind claimed she was entitled to compensation under the Act as the widow of a `worker . The throne Council in London held thatthe company and Mr Lee were distinct legal entities and therefore capable of ingress into legal relations with one anot heras such they had entered into a contractual relationship for him to be employed as the chief pilot of the companyhe could in his role of Governing Director give himself s as chief pilot . It was therefore...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper