In salomon v salomon how many judges thought mr broderip should be paid on the debenture he had purchased from mr salomon?

In Salomon v Salomon and amp Co Ltd 1897 AC 22 how many judges thought Mr Broderip should not be paid on the debenture he had purchased from Mr Salomon and accordingly the judgment of the Court of App?

All except two of them

Who won the case of salomon v salomon?

In the first case, Broderip v Salomon [1893] B 4793, Vaughan Williams J said Mr Broderip's claim was valid. It was undisputed that the 20,000 were fully paid up. He said the company had a right of indemnity against Mr Salomon. He said the signatories of the memorandum were mere dummies, the company was just Mr Salomon in another form, an alias, his agent. Therefore it was entitled to indemnity from the principal. The liquidator amended the counter claim, and an award was made for indemnity.The Court of Appeal [1895] 2 Ch 323 confirmed Vaughan Williams J's decision against Mr Salomon, though on the grounds that Mr. Salomon had abused the privileges of incorporation and limited liability, which Parliament had intended only to confer on "independent bona fide shareholders, who had a mind and will of their own and were not mere puppets". Lindley LJ (an expert on partnership law) held that the company was a trustee for Mr Salomon, and as such was bound to indemnify the company's debts. Lopes LJ and Kay LJ variously described the company as a myth and a fiction and said that the incorporation of the business by Mr Salomon had been a mere scheme to enable him to carry on as before but with limited liability.House of LordsThe House of Lords unanimously overturned this decision, rejecting the arguments from agency and fraud. They held that there was nothing in the Act about whether the subscribers (i.e. the shareholders) should be independent of the majority shareholder. The company was duly constituted in law and it was not the function of judges to read into the statute limitations they themselves considered expedient. Lord Halsbury LC stated that the statute "enacts nothing as to the extent or degree of interest which may be held by each of the seven [shareholders] or as to the proportion of interest or influence possessed by one or the majority over the others."Lord Halsbury remarked that - even if he were to accept the proposition that judges were at liberty to insert words to manifest the intention they wished to impute to the Legislature - he was unable to discover what affirmative proposition the Court of Appeal's logic suggested. He considered that identifying such an affirmative proposition represented an "insuperable difficulty" for anyone putting forward the argument propounded by the Lords Justices of Appeal.Lord Herschell noted the potentially "far reaching" implications of the Court of Appeal's logic and that in recent years many companies had been set up in which one or more of the seven shareholders were "disinterested persons" who did not wield any influence over the management of the company. Anyone dealing with such a company was aware of its nature as such, and could by consulting the register of shareholders become aware of the breakdown of share ownership among the shareholders.Lord Macnaghten asked what was wrong with Mr. Salomon taking advantage of the provisions set out in the statute, as he was perfectly legitimately entitled to do. It was not the function of judges to read limitations into a statute on the basis of their own personal view that, if the laws of the land allowed such a thing, they were "in a most lamentable state", as Malins V-C had stated in an earlier case in point, In Re Baglan Hall Colliery Co., which had likewise been overturned by the House of Lords.The House held:"Either the limited company was a legal entity or it was not. If it were, the business belonged to it and not to Mr Salomon. If it was not, there was no person and no thing to be an agent [of] at all; and it is impossible to say at the same time that there is a company and there is not."The House further noted:"The company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers to the Memorandum, and though it may be that after incorporation of the business is precisely the same as it was before and the same persons and managers, and the same hands receive the profits, the company is not in law the agent of the subscribers or trustees for them. Nor are the subscribers or members liable in any shape or form except to the extent and in the manner provided by the act."On the issue of floating charges, Lord Macnaghten also said this."For such a catastrophe as has occurred in this case some would blame the law that allows the creation of a floating charge. But a floating charge is too convenient a form of security to be lightly abolished. I have long thought, and I believe some of your Lordships also think, that the ordinary trade creditors of a trading company ought to have a preferential claim on the assets in liquidation in respect of debts incurred within a certain limited time before the winding-up. But that is not the law at present. Everybody knows that when there is a winding-up debenture holders generally step in and sweep off everything; and a great scandal it is."

Who was Alaska purchased by?

Seward's Folly. Many people thought the US Secretary of State was crazy for offering $7.2 Million for a bunch of ice.

When you purchased a home there were rosary beads hanging in a closet Why?

It is not unusual that when people pack up all of their belongings to move out of some address, they forget something. Alternatively, perhaps they thought that you, the new owner of the house, might be in need of rosary beads, although if that's what they thought, that was presumptuous of them.

What country purchased Alaska from America?

Alaska was purchased from Russia. The United States bought Alaska in 1967 fro $7.2 million. It was called "Seward's Folly" because many thought that Secretary Seward was crazy for buying the worthless land. However when gold was discovered in 1898, people began to thing differently.

What is the best video game out this year?

In my opinion, the best video game I have played that was released this year is Portal 2. However, I cannot guarantee that you would be of the same opinion as me regarding Portal 2. It all depends on the preferences of the individual. Try to decide on a game based on whether it appeals to you, not based on reviews. I have purchased games that received bad reviews, but I thought that they were awesome. However, I have also purchased games that got excellent reviews, but I thought "How did this piece of garbage get released?!"

Why is Mozart's Symphony No 41 called the Jupiter Symphony?

It is in a minor key.

In salomon v salomon how many judges thought mr broderip should be paid on the debenture he had purchased from mr salomon?

Add your answer:

What does a decision require?

Have you thought of using Quicken Loans Mortgage?

Which is not thought to be an advantage of teams within an organization?

Ivan was to his friend's suggestion but thought that they should first go to the bank?

Why did the world trade senter get bombed?

In Salomon v Salomon and amp Co Ltd 1897 AC 22 how many judges thought Mr Broderip should not be paid on the debenture he had purchased from Mr Salomon and accordingly the judgment of the Court of App?

From what state did US purchased Louisiana?

What products can one purchase from Food For Thought?

Who won the case of salomon v salomon?

Who was Alaska purchased by?

What would a 1989 working Delta 15 inch scroll saw be worth?

I have an original 5ft x4ft. canvas oil painting signed by Lee Reynolds that I purchased around 1987 with this number written on the back?

When you purchased a home there were rosary beads hanging in a closet Why?

What country purchased Alaska from America?

What is the best video game out this year?

What site could you visit in order to compare backup software?

Why is Mozart's Symphony No 41 called the Jupiter Symphony?

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company