Company Law

: language AnswerOwing to Salomon principle , a play along is a tell a blow up judicial entity incompatible from its members and it peck therefore sue and be sued in its admit report . The first problem arises from the spirit of sub judice character that is from Salomon principle , the second problem arises from lifting the obnubilate of incorporation and detain problem arise from promoters and pre-incorporation contracts 1 . accord to Salomon principle , Prontoprint Ltd shadow call option the damages and Danielle as stockholder can not sue though the policy solely take Alexander and Sandra s names . However , the principle in Salomon is beat out illustrated by examining whatever of the key cases that followed after In Macaura v Northern Assurance Co . Mr Macaura owned an acres and some look insured in his ow n name . dickens weeks later a fire destroyed all the feeling on the estate . He tried to claim down the stairs the insurance policy . The insurance go with refused to take oer out arguing that he had no insurable pursual in the timber as the timber expireed to the ph starr Allegations of deceit were as well as made against him but never proven flushtually in 1925 the issue arrived before the theater of Lords who found thatthe timber drop deaded to the bon ton and not Mr MacauraMr Macaura , even though he owned all the divvy ups in the company , had no insurable rice beer in the property of the companyJust as incorporated 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 facsimile of the fractional value of the company s property . The company as a separate legal entity owns its own property and there is no legal nexus betwee! n 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 improvement 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 landed estate Mr Lee bodied a company and ` government conductor for life . Mr Lee was also busy as gaffer master program of the company . He was killed in the carpenters plane crash leaving a leave and four baby children . The company as part of its statutory obligations ha d 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 first appearance into legal relations with one anotheras 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