Arthur Lang Jewelers, Inc. V. Johnson

The case Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. v. Douglas Castro asserts that Douglas Castro, a former

This essay will explain the concepts of separate personality and limited liability and their significance in company law. The principle of separate personality is defined in the Companies Act 2006(CA) ; “subscribers to the memorandum, together with such other persons as may from time to time become members of the company are a body corporate by the name contained in memorandum.” This essentially means that a company is a separate legal personality to its members and therefore can itself be sued and enter into contracts. This theory was birthed into company law through the case of Salomon v Salomon and Co LTD 1872. This case involved a company entering liquidation and the unsecured creditors not being able to claim assets to compensate them. The issue in this case was whether Mr Salomon owed the money or the company did. In the end, the House of Lords held that the company was not an agent of Mr Salomon and so the debts were that of the company thus creating the “corporate Veil” .

Fox decided to sue Johnson & Johnson, but things did not work out so well in the beginning. Imerys

in finance as an accountant until he joined a partner in Drexel, Morgan and Company in

Primary issue: Did the IRS acted ethically for using James Checksfield as a controlled informant?

In addition (Chen-Wishart n.d), notes that a company is categorized as a legal personal and operates as distinct from its shareholders. Based on these statements, Betty had not right to act on behalf of Bechdo Pty Ltd and Bechdo has the capacity to sue Betty for acting contrary to the company constitution. Based on the case study, Betty had breach the contract which existed between her and the company laws. If an act carried is outside the objects for which the company was founded to as contained in the company’s memorandum of association which is this case is the company’s constitution, then the acts are deemed to be ultra vires. In other words, the acts are beyond the capacity of the organization. In addition, contracts which are deemed ultra vires are categorized as void (Palmiter 2009, p.59). This can be referenced to Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co v Richie 1875. The doctrine of ultra vires which have deemed the contracts between Bechdo Pty Ltd and BB Ltd, Jillo Pty Ltd, and Con Development Ltd as void has been applied with the aim of protecting the interests of lenders and company shareholders. As noted by Chen-Wishart (n.d), ultra vires is necessary in protecting the interest of its shareholders who depend on objective clause of the constitution to limit the acts in which their money may be used.

The legal issues the court will determine is, whether or not Sheldon Cooper was wrongfully dismissed because Office Supplies Inc failed to provide reasonable notice and what kind of damages does Office Supplies Inc owe.

Bud Fox was caught by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of committing insider trading. He knew about the FAA information that was about to be released to the public from his father and acted on that information by relaying to Gekko. He would also go to local attorney offices and steal information about companies and use that information to his advantage with Gekko. He made a lot more money this way, but in the end, he lost by getting caught similar to how Martha Stewart was caught insider trading (“Smith, G” 2002, August). Usually when something like this happens, the SEC negotiates a deal with the accused by having them wear a wire and possibly find other individuals guilty. Fox did wear a wire and approach Gekko, who brought

According to the textbook, “An agent who makes a contract for a nonexistent principal is personally liable for it”. In our case, Koji is going to be personally liable for the contract due to the fact that he is the promoter and incorporation hasn’t performed yet. Although Main Street Sushi comes into existence, Koji will be released from the liability, if the corporation, the promoter, and the Lindenwood Realty all agree that the Main Street Sushi substituted for the promoter because Lindenwood Realty contracted directly with the Koji.

real­estate company starting after college. In 1971 he was given control of the company. Trump

The scenario for this particular case is recorded as the owner of a small Atlanta, Georgia motel bringing a declaratory relief action to have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 declared as unconstitutional. The plaintiff then

Murphy had worked for the company since graduating from college 18 years ago. He started as a research assistant. He got two promotions during that period of time and eventually was appointed a director of research, managing a staff of fourteen researchers and their assistants. The president of the company could not be reached for comment.

In the future, I would suggest that Fox News add a clause in their employment agreement. FOXNews should develop a single standardized release agreement and a set of procedures that human resource person now can use in all cases, without having to make an individual judgment about whether a particular termination might implicate FoxNews. The release of claims is an agreement between an employer and an employee whose employment has been terminated. Therefore, it is pertinent not only to FOXNews but the employer, should termination occur, that the employer understands what deductions in benefits will happen upon termination. Fox News should use the Burlington case as a template of ho to handle future similar incidents. In doing so adopt the “pay

The lease and marketing plan failed to expand office space and attract new clients, Butterfly had cash flow problems and sold to Xco Ltd, Consequently, Butterfly can sue promoters for the recession of the contracts or damages. In this case, there is five person involved—John, Paula, George, Robyn and Brian. Generally, Emma Silver Mining ‘s case defines a person who is involved in the creation of a new company is a promoter. John, Paula, George and Robyn undertook mining project, shared the rental cost and sometimes referred clients, i.e.: they are promoters as they took active parts in the formation of a company and generated the necessary share capital to carry on business. For Brian, an accountant providing tax service, does not act purely in his professional captivity and he agreed to purchase some non-voting shares of Butterfly. This makes him take an inactive position in Butterfly but can receive dividends. The similar facts in Mandalay’s case, RSC leaves the project to Mandalay and also gets profit from the operation, therefore Brian is a promoter, too. In summary, John, Paula, George, Robyn and Brian, as Butterfly’s promoters, automatically establish a fiduciary relationship with Butterfly.

Often promoters of companies try to enter into contracts on behalf of proposed corporations in order to secure the contract before the time for incorporation or to confirm the contracts for the corporation before the expense of incorporation is incurred. Normally the promoter does not have any intention of being personally liable on the contracts. In some cases the promoter is aware that the corporation has not been incorporated but the person dealt with is not aware that the corporation has not been incorporated. In other cases neither the