Salmon Vs Salomon Case

2260 Words10 Pages

Salomon V Salomon The statement states “that the decision in Salomon V Salomon was an outrage as it seemed to encourage a sense of irresponsibility in the business community” is referring to the doctrine of separate legal entity in which the decision held by the court has been said to be abusive to the business community and brings more negative than the positive outcomes. The House Of Lord who confirms that a company upon its incorporation, is a separate legal entity from its members. When the company is insolvent, the creditors can only look to the company, not its members for repayment. (Chan, 2012) Prior to the court judgement, the main issue was whether the debenture originally issued to Aaron Salomon was valid and therefore ranked in priority to unsecured …show more content…

Advice For Lorna The doctrine of ultra vires is developed to protect innocent parties such as creditors and investors of the company that entered into transactions with companies outside the object clause.(Owusu‐Dapaa and Adarkwah, 2009) At common law, a company’s transaction which is outside its object clause is ultra vires and consequently void.(Chan, 2012) If it were to follow the case law Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co v Riche 1875, which states that any act or contract entered into by the directors that does not include the object clauses of the company will be sued, the business venture run by Dynamic Sdn Bhd in trading metal and housing development will be sued because it was held that the business of general contracting must be “construed ejusdem generis” with the preceding words in Memorandum of Association and should be restricted to contracting in the particular field.(Griffin,

Open Document