Principle Discussed Completely Overruled - Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Principle Discussed Completely Overruled? Answer Introducation The identification doctrine helps us to recognize and point any frauds or wrongs that are done by a member, officer or Agent of the said organization by laying down principles that would make the task handier. By what is discussed above, it can be concluded that the ideas and minds responsible for the working of an organization are the brain of the entity in legal terms, hence, the doctrine is a theory used to administer the wit and the will of an organization. It was in the famed Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] AC 705 case that the doctrine was formulated. It was stated in the court of law that liability can only be inflicted if any entity from the organisation is involved, when it was questioned if a ship was liable for the loss of goods if directed on a wrong course. Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre and Rubber Co (Great Britain) Ltd [1916] 2 AC 307 was a case in which it was very clearly stated by the jury that the companys residence can be considered as a place where the minds that work together to administer the company reside in. El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc [1993] EWCA Civ 4 case became a turning point as it re-shaped the idea of the doctrine. It was ruled that all people can take command as the brain and the administrator of a company, hence, the principle that was discussed above was completely overruled. Before we discuss the case of Salomon v A Salomon Co Ltd [1896] UKHL It can be said that the stockholders are inclined to follow a doctrine that induces them either to lift the veil in question or simply to pierce the said corporate veil. It is known that a financial institute or a company is an unrelated and a unique legal entity, not bound by the identities of any other of its members. Something similar can be said for its losses and liabilities, for it is known that the company is a separate legal entity so all the losses and liabilities that are inflicted upon it are subjected to the organization only, not on its members. Hence getting into the above case, the foundations of the company was based on a fraud. If a company is formed properly, it is bound to be a totally separate legal entity no matter what; hence the court has the choices to lift or to pierce, convicting the members of breach of law, though it is quite rare for companies to apply for such conditions in many countr ies of the world. In the Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 case, the court ruled that piercing will only be done when the roots of the company are based on a fraud or if a member applies for an exit. There was a debate on this very topic in the of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34 case and the same opinion was held up by the court. References Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre and Rubber Co (Great Britain) Ltd [1916] 2 AC 307 El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc [1993] EWCA Civ 4 Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] AC 705 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34 Salomon v A Salomon Co Ltd [1896] UKHL