Gilford Motor Co V S Horne Essays and Term Papers

  • Directors Duty

    directors have the duty to prevent their company incurring debts when the company is insolvent or would become insolvent (Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 588). Firstly, it needs to be sought as to when s588G applies. It must be analysed whether the company was insolvent at the time or became insolvent...

    Premium | 2016 Words | 6 Pages

  • Paper

    TITLE OF THE CASE Gilford Motor Co. vs. Horne(1933)1Ch. 935 FACTS OF THE CASE Mr EB Horne was formerly a managing director of the Gilford Motor Co Ltd. He agreed in writing (clause 9) to not solicit customers of the company when he left employment. Then he was fired. He set up his own business and...

    Premium | 1090 Words | 4 Pages

  • Salomon V a Salomon

    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...

    Premium | 2261 Words | 7 Pages

  • Corporate law

    formed before commencing trading. 3. These two structures provide flexibility as compared to a sole trader, if one partner is ill the other partner/s can take care of the business. Contrasts 1. In a company there can be a minimum of one member who has 100% shareholding in the company but for a...

    Premium | 2502 Words | 11 Pages

  • Consequences of Incorporation

    legal Salomon v Salomon & Co • FACTS: Comp – 20K shares + 10K debentures (loan) owned by Mr S (secured cred). 6 other shareholders – Mrs S and 5 children. Financial trouble – loan from Mr B (5K). Liquidated – Mr B paid back. 1K left. • ISSUE: not enough money to pay all sec (Mr S)/unsec creditors...

    Premium | 1334 Words | 5 Pages

  • Law for Manager

    partners. (S 19). ‘The relation which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view to profit.’ Under S24 (5) ‘in common’ means every partner has a say in the firm. The members are only liable for their subscription unless the partnership agreement says otherwise. Saywell V Rope [1979]...

    Premium | 3507 Words | 9 Pages

  • company law

    the answer on this problem. The first one is Gilford Motor Company Limited v Horne [1933] CH935. This case is very similar to the case of Computer and Chu. In the case of Gilford Motor Company and Horne, Horne was a managing director of the Gilford Motor Co Ltd. His employment contract stipulated (clause...

    Premium | 774 Words | 2 Pages

  • Company Law

    Furthermore, this case is related with previous case, which is Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne (1993) 1 Ch 935, Court of Appeal (UK) (Harris, Hargovan, and Adams 2011, 177). Gilford Motor Co Ltd brought an action seeking to restrain Horne and the company he formed which the sole shareholder and directors...

    Premium | 336 Words | 1 Pages

  • Corporation and Partnership Law

    Assignment Part 1 – Précis / Short Essay (30% of assignment) The case Salomon v Salomon & CO. Ltd indicates the ‘Corporate veil’ which refers to distinct the company as a separate legal entity from its shareholders. It can protect the shareholders from not taking liability personally for the company’s...

    Premium | 1595 Words | 5 Pages

  • Claw2201 Study Notes

    Minimum of one member S.114 - A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual both in and outside this jurisdiction. A company also has the powers of a body corporate. . . . “ S.124 - “The business of a company is to be managed by or under the direction of the directors” S.198A - “A proprietary...

    Premium | 476 Words | 2 Pages

  • Company Law

    entity was established in the case of Salomon v A. Salomon, now referred to as the 'Salomon' principle Legal The House of Lords’ decision in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] established the separate identity of the company. Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 is a landmark UK company law...

    Premium | 2049 Words | 6 Pages

  • [Separation of legal personality and lifting the corporate veil ]

    of Salomon v A Salomon co ltd (1897), Catherine lee v Lee’s Air farming ltd (1960). Salomon v Salomon was the first principle case of its kind and its principle was that a limited company is a separate legal entity, in catherine lee v lee this case was reaffirmed, and Gilford Motors v Horne was the first...

    Premium | 1189 Words | 4 Pages

  • Company Law Assignment

    needed to be discussed. The first one is whether Kwan or Lau&Kwan Co. would be liable for the debt incurred by Lau. The second issue is whether Lau&Kwan Co. has established a place of business in Hong Kong. In the light of s.7 of the Partnership Ordinance, “acts of every partner, who does any...

    Premium | 2862 Words | 8 Pages

  • Company Law

    It shows plainly enough the ground of the judge's decision: but, by an oversight, it was not submitted to the judge, as it should have been: see Bruen v. Bruce (Practice Note) [1959] 1 WLR 684. In some circumstances we should send it back to the judge for his comments. But I do not think we need do so...

    Premium | 3902 Words | 13 Pages

  • Corporate Personality

    of Salomon v Salomon; this case laid the foundations for what has become the principle in which a court will follow, in times where a company’s separate legal personality is questioned. The first case that began the eventual principle was held in the High Court with the case of Broderip v Salomon (1893)...

    Premium | 4411 Words | 12 Pages

  • Corporate Veil

    predict the outcome of cases with precision as in the case of Salomon v. Salomon & Co Ltd (1897). Separate corporate personality has been firmly recognized by common law after the verdict given in the case of Salomon v. Salomon & Co Ltd (1897). It was confirmed that a corporation has legal right, personality...

    Premium | 2014 Words | 7 Pages

  • “…the Courts Can and Often Do, Draw Aside the Veil. They Can, and Often Do, Pull Off the Mask. They Look to See What Really Lies Behind. the Legislature Has Shown the Way… the Courts Should Follow Suit”.

    entities from the corporate body has arisen. The nature of corporate personality can be analysed by reference to the celebrated case of Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd.[2] Indeed it has been said that Salomon forms a cornerstone of company law and that the separate legal identity of a company stands as...

    Premium | 4004 Words | 12 Pages

  • Fast Way

    word or be inferred by the conduct of the parties 4must be intended as such before a contract can arise Termination 1offeror has revoked (dickinson v dodd )76 2 it has expired by lapse of time (Walker vs glass )77 3the offeree reject it or made counter...

    Premium | 11043 Words | 31 Pages

  • Company Law

    March 25 2013 Issue The case of “John V Diamond Car Sales” deals with the Companies Acts 1963-(the Act) specifically the creation of a Separate Legal Personality. In John case we need to establish was the formation of the company correctly incorporated by John, and if so is the company as...

    Premium | 2252 Words | 6 Pages

  • Veil of Incorporation

    Salomon’s case, Salomon starts his business as sole trader. His son inherent his business and decided to start as a limited company, called a Salomon and Co Ltd. Mr. Salomon sold his business to the new corporation for almost £39,000, of which £10,000 was a debt to him. He asked the company to issue a debenture...

    Premium | 4006 Words | 10 Pages