When is a Parent Company Liable for the Actions of Its Subsidiary? From a purely legal perspective, a parent company is a legal entity that is separate from the juridical personality of its subsidiary. Still, a question arises as to whether the legal fiction of the juridical entity of each company is always strictly adhered to. In other words, may the legal separation between a parent company and its subsidiary be disregarded so that the former may be liable for the actions of the latter? If yes, in what circumstances should a court pierce the corporate veil?
These does lead to influencing of the organizational culture. Next, is what comes the way a business is conducted and treating its employees including its company’s policies, company’s procedures and company’s practices. It must also be observed as to how the information flows throughout its management and employee working hierarchy and determining the extent at which the people are allowed in decision making process. Besides that, the management and employee reward structure such as, salary increments, bonus, incentives and other form of compensations, needs to be considered. These factors too affect the organization culture.
In this regard, appropriate actions are needed for Ko to protect her interest from being abused. 3. Rule in Foss v Harbottle In Foss v Harbottle, individual shareholder cannot commence legal action against directors for breach of duties, which are owed to the company as a whole. The proper plaintiff is the company itself, rather than the individual shareholder. In Re Kong Thai Sawmill 1978, a person, who purchases the shares of a company limited by shares, has to accept “majority control principle”.
INTRODUCTION Since it was found that it would be difficult for the victim to prove the minute aspects of existence of duty and the breach of such duty, with irrevocable evidence, and that all cases might not attract the maxim res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself), the courts evolved the principle of ‘no fault liability’. No fault liability has evolved into strict liability through the landmark case of Ryland v. Fletcher in 1868, and into absolute liability in India as result of another leading case M.C. Mehta v. Union of India in 1987. ‘No fault liability’ — the meaning of this phrase is clear with the words that form the phrase. There might not be a fault per se but if an activity is so dangerous that it may constitute constant danger to person and property, the person who performs such an activity must be liable even if his or her fault is not present.
The requirements for an actionable misrepresentation are that; the misrepresentation must be a statement of existing fact or past events, and not a statement of opinion; it must induce a person to enter into the contract; it must be material in that it relates to a matter which would influence a reasonable person’s decision whether to enter into the contract. (Misrepresentation Act, Cap 390) There are three types of misrepresentation: The first is innocent misrepresentation - when the representor had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her false statement was true. The second is negligent misrepresentation - a representation made carelessly or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth. The third is fraudulent misrepresentation - where a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth. The affect of a finding of misrepresentation, regardless of whether it is innocent, negligent or fraudulent, is that the contract is voidable, and the innocent party may rescind the contract, which generally means terminating the contract and returning the parties to the position they were before the
Referring to such an agreement in V. Pechimuthu v Gowrammal the SC said: “such an agreement. Not being merely a privilege or concession, such as an option to purchase, granted to the owner, remain an agreement for sale of immovable property and must be governed by the same provisions of law as are applicable to ordinary agreements for sale. Decision as to whether an agreement is an option to purchase or an ordinary agreement depends on interpretation of its terms. It was held on the facts that the reconveyance agreement in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, the original vendor, was an ordinary agreement for sale. The HC in second appeal erred in reversing the decree of specific performance in his favour granted by trial court and affirmed by first appellate
Is past consideration regarded as adequate and sufficient when determining the validity of a contract? B. LAW Doctrine of promissory estoppel In contract law, it is a general rule that where a party to the contract makes a representation in form of a promise to another party relating to the contract, such party is restrained from reneging regardless of nonexistence of consideration (Jill, 2012, p. 148). The doctrine was espoused in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd  KB 130. It requires of the promisor to honour a unilateral promise he made to the promisee who is not required to pay consideration from in certain circumstances.
Introduction The traditional English law has long been holding a hostile position towards recognising the duty of negotiation in good faith, let alone the general principle of good faith in other jurisdictions. Notwithstanding the underlying legal difficulties in Walford v Miles, a general principle should be established to facilitate business efficacy, fairness and reasonableness in legal development. Hereinafter, I will analyse its rationale in English law and submit the possible application of general principle of good faith with reference to both common law and civil law jurisdictions. Traditional position of “good faith” in English law Walford was a classical decision demonstrating English court’s denial of duty of good faith in
This amounts to the abuse of the process. However in Brunsden v Humphrey (1884), the court agreed that different cause of action aroused even in the same incident on recovering damages of property and personal injury so the claimant was entitled with damages. There are two views in issue estoppel. The narrow view is set out in Randolph v Tuck , considering different issues in this case in the matter of law. Therefore the defendant was not estopped to deny his responsibility.