Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd (Salomon) has created an impressive case in English Law history. The decision of the House of Lords in Salomon has reaffirmed the separate legal personality of a company. A separate legal personality is also known as the corporate personality. It is one of the consequences of the Company Act 2006 which incorporated a sole trader company to a limited company. When a company has undergone incorporation‚ it simply means that the shareholders of the company are separated
Premium Corporation Limited liability
legal standing of the doctrine of ’separate legal personality ’ as it was developed in Salomon v. Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. Even though this doctrine is the stone head of the English company common law‚ the courts introduced several exceptions which undermined the ’veil of incorporation ’. The exceptions were firstly introduced in the mid-60s by Lord Denning in Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd. V IRC [1969]‚ and allowed the court to lift the veil and hold the shareholders liable for the company
Premium Corporation Corporations law Legal entities
Professor Ballone 14 February 2014 Obscenity in Miller v. California Today in our criminal justice system there exists a policy known as “The Miller Test”. The purpose of this test is to determine whether or not a given substance is obscene or not. It is a test that is frequently used today by police‚ and its significance is clearly obvious. The “Miller Test” is a direct result from the outcome of the U.S Supreme Court decision‚ Miller v. California. In this case‚ a local business owner who specialized
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Obscenity Supreme Court of the United States
Suman Siva Prof. Jeong Chun Phuoc 012014111647 Assignment 2 – Weekly Case Law Critique WEEK 2 CASE LAW ON DONOGHUE V STEVENSON (1932) Summary On August 26th 1928‚ Donoghue (plaintiff) and a friend were at a case in Glasgow‚ Scotland. Her friend ordered / purchased a bottle of ginger beer for Donoghue. The bottle was in an opaque bottle (dark glass material) as Donoghue was not aware of the contents. After‚ Donoghue drank some and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger
Premium Law Duty of care Tort
Brewer v Mann Queen ’s Bench Division 14 October 2010 Case Analysis Where Reported[2010] EWHC 2444 (QB); Official Transcript Case DigestSubject: Sale of goods Other related subjects: Sale of goods; Consumer law Keywords: Bailment; Breach of contract; Breach of warranty; Damages; Hire purchase; Misleading statements; Motor dealers; Trade descriptions; Warranties Summary: The claimant succeeded in her claims for breach of warranty and breach of contract in respect of the sale to her
Premium Contract Contract law
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Criminal Procedure and the Constitution September 13‚ 2012 Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Facts: In Mapp v. Ohio (1961)‚ the police thought Dollree Mapp was hiding a suspect they were looking for in connection with building a bomb. The police officers lied and said they had a search warrant of which they did not and forced their way into Mapp’s home and searched it. While searching the home‚ the police found evidence‚ not for a bomb‚ but of pornographic material that violated
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
Arizona v. Gant PALS480-Capstone June 20‚ 2012 The Parties • Plaintiff – State of Arizona • Defendant – Rodney Gant • Appellant – State of Arizona • Respondent – Rodney Gant Procedural History • Respondent‚ Rodney Gant‚ was arrested for driving with a suspended license. Subsequent to the search of the Gant’s vehicle officers found cocaine in the back seat. At trial Gant moved to have the evidence suppressed denied that there was probable cause to search the vehicle‚ but did
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Bowers v. Hardwick United States Supreme Court Opinion This case‚ Bowers v. Hardwick‚ originated when Michael Hardwick was targeted by a policer officer for harassment in Georgia. A houseguest of Hardwick’s let the officer into his home‚ where Hardwick was found engaging in oral sex with his partner‚ who was another male. Michael Hardwick was arrested and charged of sodomy. After charges were later dropped‚ Hardwick brought his case to the Supreme Court to have the sodomy law declared unconstitutional
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Law
73 F.3d 965‚ *; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 436‚ **; 37 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1449; 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 315 BUFFETS‚ INC.‚ a Minnesota corporation; and EVERGREEN BUFFETS‚ INC.‚ an Oregon corporation‚ Plaintiffs-Appellants‚ v. PAUL KLINKE; CAROL KLINKE; GREG KLINKE; GRANNY’S BUFFET‚ INC.‚ a Washington corporation; and MARK MILLER‚ Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-36222 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 73 F.3d 965; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 436; 37 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1449; 96 Cal. Daily
Premium Secrecy
Oriana McGrath POSC Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz Case Brief FACTS: The Michigan State Police established a sobriety checkpoint pilot program that went on for only one day. “Under the guidelines‚ checkpoints would be set up at selected sites along state roads. All vehicles passing through a checkpoint would be stopped and their drivers briefly examined for signs of intoxication. In cases where a checkpoint officer detected signs of intoxication‚ the motorist would be directed to
Premium United States United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States