Gilford Motor Co. V Horne Case Study
Gilford Motor Co V S Horne(1933)
Horne was appointed Managing Director Gilford Motor Co 6-year term. He appointed by a written agreement says he will not solicit customers for their own purposes and whether he is a general manager or after he left. In order to avoid the effect of the agreement, Horne left Gilford Motor Co. and started his own company. Johnson's company provides car accessories of Gilford Motor Co’s car in a weaken price and the shareholder of Gilford Motor being his associate in his own company. Horne has been a violation of his agreement with Gilford Motor, so he started a new company. Gilford Motor Co prosecute violations of the labor contract, Horne believes that the company has a separate legal identity. The operation of …show more content…
Swil27. 2013. Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.answers.com/Q/Gilford_Motor_Co_Ltd_v_Horne. [Accessed 05 November 14].
Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corp (1939)
The one of the issues for the court to lift the veil of incorporation is agency issue.This problem is to solve disputes between shareholders and the agent.In the case of an example, the problem of institutional Smith, Stone Knight V Birmingham companies .In the case of Smith, Stone & Knight v. Birmingham Corporation, the one of the issues need to be considered by the court which is whether Birmingham Waste Co Ltd (BWC) was an agent for Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd (SSK) and the another problem is that the court should consider …show more content…
Business belongs to DHN the parent although premise is invested by bronze Investments. Another wholly owned subsidiary, DHN Food Transport had the vehicle. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council acquired the land and denied liability to compensate the parent company for the loss of its business since the parent only operated under a license opposed to a lease. The Court of Appeal emphasized the significance of the presence of "single economic unit",and recognize it as a single entity, recover compensation, but the members of the court were significantly influenced by different factors.It was held that the ownership of a lease and of the business which use of the premise of the business is divided into the same group, the two companies were seen as if belong to the same person.In short, the court lifted the veil when justice in demand and treated DHN and its subsidiaries as an economic
Horne was appointed Managing Director Gilford Motor Co 6-year term. He appointed by a written agreement says he will not solicit customers for their own purposes and whether he is a general manager or after he left. In order to avoid the effect of the agreement, Horne left Gilford Motor Co. and started his own company. Johnson's company provides car accessories of Gilford Motor Co’s car in a weaken price and the shareholder of Gilford Motor being his associate in his own company. Horne has been a violation of his agreement with Gilford Motor, so he started a new company. Gilford Motor Co prosecute violations of the labor contract, Horne believes that the company has a separate legal identity. The operation of …show more content…
Swil27. 2013. Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.answers.com/Q/Gilford_Motor_Co_Ltd_v_Horne. [Accessed 05 November 14].
Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corp (1939)
The one of the issues for the court to lift the veil of incorporation is agency issue.This problem is to solve disputes between shareholders and the agent.In the case of an example, the problem of institutional Smith, Stone Knight V Birmingham companies .In the case of Smith, Stone & Knight v. Birmingham Corporation, the one of the issues need to be considered by the court which is whether Birmingham Waste Co Ltd (BWC) was an agent for Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd (SSK) and the another problem is that the court should consider …show more content…
Business belongs to DHN the parent although premise is invested by bronze Investments. Another wholly owned subsidiary, DHN Food Transport had the vehicle. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council acquired the land and denied liability to compensate the parent company for the loss of its business since the parent only operated under a license opposed to a lease. The Court of Appeal emphasized the significance of the presence of "single economic unit",and recognize it as a single entity, recover compensation, but the members of the court were significantly influenced by different factors.It was held that the ownership of a lease and of the business which use of the premise of the business is divided into the same group, the two companies were seen as if belong to the same person.In short, the court lifted the veil when justice in demand and treated DHN and its subsidiaries as an economic