Corporate law (also known as Business Law or Enterprise Law or sometimes Company Law) is the body of law governing the rights, relations, and conduct of persons, companies, organizations and businesses. The term refers to the legal practice of law relating to corporations, or to the theory of corporations.
I have watched several different videos covering Salomon v Salomon, trying to understand it. Yours was the first video that I found that made it clear and understandable for me. Thank you.
Lifting the corporate veil is a more general term that refers to any situation in which a court disregards the separate legal personality of a corporation. This can happen for a variety of reasons, such as fraud, illegality, or abuse of the corporate form. Piercing the corporate veil is a more specific term that refers to a court holding the shareholders or directors of a corporation personally liable for the corporation's debts or actions.
Hi ma'am. Could you upload more videos on corporate law with case laws including IBC and corporate Governance. It is very useful and easy to learn from watching your videos.
The case is called Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd because it was a legal dispute between Mr. Aron Salomon, the founder and majority shareholder of A Salomon & Co Ltd, and the company itself. Mr. Salomon was the plaintiff in the case, while the company, represented by its liquidator, was the defendant.
Why did Mr Salomon not form an ordinary (unlimited liability) partnership with his family members? . I understand ordinary partnerships are governed under the Partnerships Act 1890.
Mr. Solomon did not form an ordinary unlimited liability partnership with his family members because of the risks involved. In an ordinary unlimited liability partnership, all partners are personally liable for the debts and liabilities of the partnership. This means that if the partnership goes bankrupt, the partners could lose their personal assets, including their homes and cars. Mr. Solomon may have been concerned about the risks of unlimited liability for his family members. He may have wanted to protect their personal assets in case the partnership failed. He may also have wanted to give them more control over their own financial affairs.
