Preview

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1326 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
Bàitập 1 – Chương 1
HãyđọccácđoạntríchtrongbảnánvàxácđịnhcácnguồnluậtvàTòaánđãsửdụng

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Broderip v Salomon)
Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 is a landmark1 UK company law case. The effect of the Lords ' unanimous 2 ruling was to uphold 3firmly the doctrine4 of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862, so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company 's shareholders to pay up outstanding debts.
Facts[edit]
MrAron Salomon made leather boots and shoes in a large Whitechapel High Street establishment. His sons wanted to become business partners, so he turned the business into a limited company. His wife and five eldest children became subscribers 5 and two eldest sons also directors. Mr Salomon took 20,000 of the company 's 20,006 shares. Transfer of the business took place on June 1, 1892. The company also gave Mr Salomon £10,000 in debentures6 (i.e., Salomon gave the company a £10,000 loan, secured by a charge over the assets of the company).
Soon after Mr Salomon incorporated his business a decline in boot sales, exacerbated 7 by a series of strikes which led the Government, Salomon 's main customer, to split its contracts among more firms to avoid the risk of its few suppliers being crippled 8 by strikes. Mr Salomon assigned 9 Edmund Broderip his debenture, the loan with 10% interest and secured by a floating charge. But Salomon 's business still failed, and he could not keep up with the interest payments. In October 1893 MrBroderip sued to enforce his security. The company was put into liquidation. Broderip was repaid his £5,000, and then the debenture was reassigned to Salomon, who retained the floating charge over the company.
Judgment[edit]
High Court[edit]
At first instance, the case entitled Broderip v Salomon[1] Vaughan Williams J said MrBroderip 's claim was valid. It was undisputed that the 200 shares were fully

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    FACT: In this case both sides of the party have very good statements and facts that either hold them responsible or not hold them responsible. When it comes to the defendant Mervin Hyland, he says that during the whole time the two promissory notes were being conducted he was incapacitated through the use of liquor when he signed the note. When it comes to the plaintiff First state bank of Sinai, they stated that he signed a promissory note and sent a check for $900 to pay for interest on the note.…

    • 547 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    HCC 40, PC 3: Court Case

    • 745 Words
    • 3 Pages

    .Rule: The court may disregard of the corporation by it`s shareholders so that the corporation is not acting in the best interests of the corporation "Alter…

    • 745 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Memorandum and Objective: The purpose of the memorandum is to provide a detailed review and analysis of the legal situation considering “Paslay, Bryan & Brooks, Barristers & Solicitors**” and…

    • 1123 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    S. Co. Inc. V.

    • 216 Words
    • 1 Page

    The court affirmed. Business income generated by S corporations flowed directly to appellants for taxation purposes and retained status as it passed to appellants. Appellants availed themselves of Ohio's benefits and opportunities by earning income through Subchapter S corporations. The S corporations' business activity removed appellants from immunity ((LINCCWeb Catalog Search, n.d.).…

    • 216 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    He incorporated a company named Salomon and Co. Ltd. He took over the entire business of a running concern. Salomon and the seven subscribers to the memorandum were he and his family members. Salomon and his two sons were the Directors of the Company. The business of the company was transferred for £30000. Salomon took 20000 share of £1 each and debentures worth 10000 in…

    • 2654 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    TABL1710 Autosaved

    • 1915 Words
    • 8 Pages

    ROSE & FRANK COMPANY V JR CROMPTON & BROS LTD (agreed to be bound by principle)…

    • 1915 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Alien Tort Statute (ATS)

    • 1216 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Supreme Court has not determined whether corporations can be held liable under the ATS, but this question has been addressed by various circuit courts with different results. This split in the circuits indicates that a universal customary international norm does not exist…

    • 1216 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Best Essays

    [ 29 ]. Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330.…

    • 2525 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Best Essays

    Unconscionability

    • 2687 Words
    • 11 Pages

    [ 6 ]. Cobbe v Yeoman 's Row Management Ltd [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1752 Lord Walker 92…

    • 2687 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    The dispute occurred in Victoria between a registered company, Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd ("the plaintiff") and an incorporated company, Nathan's Merchandise Pty Ltd. ("the defendant), where both parties operated their business. Two previous binding contracts (orders No. 58 and No. M57) were made in communications on 14th May 1951 and 2nd August 1951 respectively, each for the sale by the plaintiff to the defendant of 1,000,000 Hungarian .22 bullets. A consignment of 1,800,000 bullets for the above orders was dispatched from Sydney to the defendant by rail on the 12th February 1952 and was received by a carrier employed by the defendant in Melbourne who stored the bullets in the defendant's warehouse, where they resided for three days. Claiming that under the contractual terms, those bullets should only be delivered when requested, the defendant refused to take the delivery, and thus reconsigned the bullets back to Sydney by rail. On 3rd March 1952 a letter by the plaintiff's solicitor was sent out requiring the defendant to accept the "contractual goods" and that otherwise necessary steps would be taken to enforce the plaintiff's legal rights. On 6th March the defendant's solicitors responded by reasserting the stance that it had been settled from the start that delivery of bullets should be made only when the defendant required them, to fulfill its customers' orders. In addition the defendant's solicitors raised the further point that the location of delivery in Melbourne was inconsistent with the contractual terms.…

    • 1433 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    * Allen’s Arthur Robinson.2007, Directors Duties during Insolvency, 2nd Edition, and Thomson Law book Co., ISBN 9780455223490.…

    • 2110 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Shah V Hsbc

    • 1320 Words
    • 6 Pages

    1. Review the decision in the case of Shah v. HSBC (2012) and evaluate the implications of the decision for regulated financial services firms. In particular:…

    • 1320 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Shlensky V. Wrigley

    • 1709 Words
    • 7 Pages

    This case proves that the defendant and the stockholders he represented were the majority stockholders, the plaintiff is a minority stockholder and the majority stockholders can control the policy of the corporation. The court was not necessarily in favor of what the majority…

    • 1709 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Equity and Trust Coursework

    • 3605 Words
    • 15 Pages

    [8] C E F Rickett [1979] CLP 1, Modern Equity, 16th edn, pp136,137 criticized the decision to be not workable…

    • 3605 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Salomon v Salomon & Co [1897] AC 22 (Salomon). For extended discussion of Salomon, see R Grantham…

    • 15226 Words
    • 61 Pages
    Powerful Essays

Related Topics