The Judicial Observation On The Australian Competition And Consumer Commission V Yazaki Corporation Case

It seems understandable that a business should exist as a separate legal personality as it would be impossible for an individual’s motives and goals to be perfectly in line with that of the company as is demonstrated above in Salomon. Following this theory the idea that the rights and duties of a company are not that of its members and shareholders as demonstrated in the case of Lee v Lee Air Farming .

The thesis deals with the above concepts and discusses how the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) modified the law, particularly, by extending the legal capacity of a company and extinguishing or modifying the above rules which had previously restricted a company's ability

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is an administer of the competition and Consumer Act (CCA) which is to prevent collusion among the firms and to prevent the individual firm which break the market equilibrium with their market power. Well competitive market would deliver efficiency costs, faster innovation, prevention of unduly concentrated markets, business freedom, wealth distribution, and enhancement of international competitiveness. Therefore, the ACCC is playing a crucial role in Australia, and their activities can be divided into four categories; (1) the policies for anti-competitive conduct and anti-competitive practices, (2) the mergers policy, (3) the consumer protection policy, and (4) four pillars policy.

This paper describes the impact of the decision made in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Brent LBC on the law and its effects on the corporate world, and the comparison between the doctrine of vicarious liability that it outlines and the doctrine of identification that was used earlier to determine the liability of corporations in cooperate crime.

1. Whether Casino Ltd. (the parent company) and Caterers Ltd. (its wholly-owned subsidiary company) are considered as separate legal entities. Additionally, whether the concept of corporate veil applies to the corporate groups (between Casino Ltd and Caterers Ltd).

Tomasic, R. Jackson, J. & Woellner, R. (2002). Corporations Law: Principles, Policy and Process. 4th ed. Sydney: Butterworths

This essay will discuss the requirements for a legally binding contract, elements for establishing misrepresentation in a court and some elements of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Mr Manfredi entered into a bilateral contact with Elvis Eggplant who is the director of the vegetarian café HappyHippie.

I agree with the points Emma raised above. Whilst the Australian Consumer Law provides relatively adequate protection for consumers there are ethical issues that the law fails to consider. Emma raised a very noteworthy example in that false or misleading conduct is deemed to illegal under section 18. However, advertisements which are deemed legal contains ambiguity, concealment of relevant facts, exaggeration and phycological appeals which are all unethical techniques that advertisers use. Furthermore, Australian Consumer law does not prevent advertisements from being targeted at young children who are particularly susceptible to the unrealistic images portrayed in the commercials. Harvard business professor Theadore Levitt argues advertising

Choosing a Corporation/Company Structure - the business structure of a company/ corporation is highly recommended, it has the flexibility to gain more capital, or credit capability and assets used as security. Based on the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) AC 22, a corporation is another legal entity with their own legal rights, duties and responsibilities separate to the individual or owner of the company (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, 2013, pp 229). The risk and consequences are one of the principal considerations of choosing a company structure (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, pp 50). Based on the “Corporate Veil” Liability is owned by a separate legal entity and not to the extent of the owner, for instance, the debt of the company is not a personal liability, but the company. This is further explained in the case below.

Although doctrine of separate legal entity has the greatest importance in company law, it contains weaknesses that could be arguable. Professor Kahn-Freund described the doctrine as “calamitous” because it arise many issues, such as “How is it possible to check the one-man company and other abuse of company law?” Separate legal entity is inadequate for complex problems .

The concept of a company being a separate legal entity is the most striking illustration in separating the company from its owners. A paramount principle of corporate law is that no shareholder or member of a company is made liable for the obligations incurred by such incorporations A company is different from its members in the eyes of law. In continuations to this the opposite also holds true in the sense that neither can the company be held liable for the acts of its members. It is a fundamental distinction that a company is distinct from its members.

There is no clear framework of the rules that would cover the contingencies of a ruling to pierce the corporate veil Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd. The corporate Veil usually protects owners and shareholders from being held liable for corporate duties. Yet again a decision made by the court to lift that veil and would place the liability on shareholders, owners, administrators, executives and officers of the company without ownership interest. The purpose of this essay is to conduct an analysis on the concept of lifting the corporate veil and to review the different views on its fairness and equitability to present a better understanding of the notion, the methods used was throughout researching the numerous scholars views on the subject, case law and statutes examples, and the evidence provided by the empirical study of Ramsay & Noakes. When we discuss the lifting the corporate veil the first case that pops out is the case of Salomon V A. Salomon & Co Ltd, since the decisions of applying the corporate veil were first formed as a consequence of this case. The idea covers all of company law and distinguishes that a company is a separate legal entity from its members and directors. Furthermore, spencer (2012); have indicated that one of the core principles that followed the decision in Salomon v Salomon was the wide acceptance one man company’s. However In order to form a

The protections under the Corporations Act suffice to guard the minority from the majority’s unfair wrongdoing. In fact, the Australian corporate law provides significant protections on shareholders. To support the argument, this essay discusses Foss v Harbottle rule and derivative action. It also elaborates exceptions to the rule, especially ‘fraud on the minority’ and statutory protections available for the minority protection under the Corporations Act. These are analysed in views of organic theory, economic theory and aggregate theory. It concludes with that specific protections for the minority are unnecessary because these may lose the balance of a corporation and the minority and majority members.

The decision of Salomon v. Salomon which brought about the doctrine of separate legal personality is one which has evolved over time. Over a century and still counting, the principle illustrated in Salomon, courts have are still reluctant in placing limitations on corporate personality and rejecting other approaches which pose as a greater challenge to the doctrine . From time immemorial, judicial history, lawyers and judges have reiterated that the doctrine of corporation is an intangible legal entity, without the body and soul. In Athanasian terms, the orthodox doctrine of corporation as a legal person, separate and distinct from the personality of the members who compose it, has been defined and propagated .

Corporation origin from the Latin word Corpus which means body. It is formed by a group of people and has separate rights and liability from those individual. In any means, corporation exists independently from its owner and this principle is called the doctrine of separate personality. Doctrine of separate personality is the basic and fundamental principle in a Company Law. This principle outline the legal relationship between company and its members. Company’s assets belong to the company not the shareholders as assets are the equity for creditors. Company must use up all its assets to pay off the creditors if it became insolvent. The same applies to the corporation’s debts. For limited liabilities company, the shareholder liability is limited which means that the shareholder is restricted to the number of shares they paid and not personally liable for the corporation’s debts. If the company does not have enough equity to pay off debts, the creditors cannot come after the shareholders. However, limited liability company can be very powerful when in hands who do fraud and on defeating creditors’ claims. Courts then can ignore the doctrine for exception cases and lifting the corporate veil. Lifting the corporate veil is a situation where courts put aside limited liability and hold a corporation’s shareholders or directors personally liable for the corporation’s debts.