Investment Company Limited: The Miscellaneous Investment Company: and the Safe Securities Limited: Each of these companies took over a particular block of investments belonging to the assessed. But, as the modus operandi was substantially the same in each case it will suffice to follow out the fortunes of Petit Limited. Taking then Petit Limited as an example, this family company was incorporated about April 12, 1921, with a nominal capital of rupees ten millions divided ultimately into 9,99
Words: 1817 - Pages: 8
company; - It may sue and be sued in its own name; - It has perpetual succession; - It may own land; and - The liability of its members may be limited. The Company Act 1965 does not completely define the word ‘company’. The best definitions come from case law. For example, Buckley J in Re Stanley [1960] stated: “… the word company has no strictly technical meaning. It involves two ideas (a) that the association is of persons so numerous as not to be aptly described as a firm; (b) that the consent of
Words: 435 - Pages: 2
Word count: 1907 words Question 1 (a) 1) Issue: The plaintiff of this case is Gigi and the defendant is Chow Ltd. Plaintiff wish to sue for compensation of her illness. In addition, plaintiff would like to hold defendant liable for losses incurred. Defendant would argue that plaintiff was not directly employed by them. They are not liable for her illness. They would also argue that since they are only the holding company, liabilities should be claimed from the primary blame (Shiba Ltd).
Words: 1930 - Pages: 8
or omission causes damage or injury to another person in situations where it was foreseeable. In the case of Sebastian, the manager of the Poorich supermarket owes Sebastian and his two sons a duty of care as a customer. The concept of duty of care generally known as the ‘neighbour’s principle’ is effectively established in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson. The legal principle of Donoghue v Stevenson is, in order for the plaintiff to sue in negligence he has to prove the four vital points which
Words: 2423 - Pages: 10
Assessment 1 FNSACC604A Monitor Corporate Governance Activities Question 1 The constitutional basis for the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is the provided for the Section 3 itself and also the purpose to make provision in relation to corporations and financial products and services. There are 4 operations of the Act actually based on, first of all in Australia, the operation of the Act in the referring States is based on the legislative powers that the Commonwealth Parliament has under section
Words: 6568 - Pages: 27
other reasons. This article examines some of the grounds by which the corporate veil can be pierced under Ethiopian law and the role of courts in recognizing the doctrine. Based on the analysis of the relevant legislative provisions and some court cases, it is found that Ethiopian company law, though not sufficient, provides some clear grounds of piercing the corporate veil and certain possible grounds which may call for the application of the doctrine. It is also argued that Ethiopian courts should
Words: 17819 - Pages: 72
Contemporary Issues in Management Case study: Global Strategic Analysis Adidas and Reebok Merger Acquisition ABSTRACT 3 INTRODUCTION 4 LITERATURE REVIEW 5 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 8 VMOST 7 VISION 7 MISSION 7 OBJECTIVES 7 STRATEGIES 7 TACTICS 7 ACQUISITION 8 SWOT ANALYSIS 9 BEFORE ACQUISITION WITH REEBOK 9 STRENGTHS 9 WEAKNESSES 10 OPPURTUNITIES 10 THREATS 11
Words: 3657 - Pages: 15
of, and distinct from its members. A company is a legal person. The decision of the House of Lords in Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897 AC 22) is an authority on this principle: It was argued on behalf of the unsecured creditors that, though the co was incorporated, it never had an independent existence. It was S himself trading under another name, but the House of Lords held Salomon & Co. Ltd. must be regarded as a separate person from S. 2) Limited liability- limitation of liability
Words: 3791 - Pages: 16
corporate veil Salomon v Salomon Separate entity concept + limited liability concept ( corporate veil, which ensures that shareholders are not personally liable to creditors for their company’s debts, even though: ❖ all the company’s shares are beneficially owned by one person; and ❖ the sole purpose of the company was to obtain the benefit of limited liability. Macaura v Northern Assurance: Where a member transfers property to his company, he loses any proprietary interest
Words: 752 - Pages: 4
corporate veil Salomon v Salomon Separate entity concept + limited liability concept ( corporate veil, which ensures that shareholders are not personally liable to creditors for their company’s debts, even though: ❖ all the company’s shares are beneficially owned by one person; and ❖ the sole purpose of the company was to obtain the benefit of limited liability. Macaura v Northern Assurance: Where a member transfers property to his company, he loses any proprietary interest
Words: 752 - Pages: 4
