Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Bl presentation
Bl presentation
Bl presentation
Bl presentation
Bl presentation
Bl presentation
Bl presentation
Bl presentation
Bl presentation
Bl presentation
Bl presentation
Bl presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Bl presentation

532

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
532
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Salomon VS Salomon & co. ltd.(1897)
    ghanshyamgupta7@gmail.com
    9015264601
    2/24/2010
    1
    Ghanshyam IILM Gurgaon
  • 2. Abstract of the case
    • Mr Aron Salomon was a leather boot and shoe manufacturer. He had a wife, a daughter and five sons.
    • 3. Converted his business into a limited co.
    • 4. Company purchased the business of Solomon at 40000 pound.
    • 5. Purchase consideration was in terms of 10000 debenture, 20000 equity share and 10000 was in cash
    2/24/2010
    2
    Ghanshyam IILM Gurgaon
  • 6.
    • Mr. Salomon took 20,001 shares out of the company's 20,007 shares. And his wife and all the son and a daughter took one share each .
    • 7. The wife and five elder children became subscribers and two eldest sons also directors.
    • 8. Realized value of all the assets was 6000 pound.
    • 9. Value of all the creditors is 17000 pound out of which 10000 was secured, held by Mr. Salomon & rest are unsecured.
    2/24/2010
    3
    Ghanshyam IILM Gurgaon
  • 10. Liquidation of Solomon Co.
    • The business of the company collapsed in the depression and the company went into liquidation after a year.
    • 11. The assets of the company is not sufficient.
    • 12. Nothing was left for unsecured creditors
    2/24/2010
    4
    Ghanshyam IILM Gurgaon
  • 13.
    • The unsecured creditors sued Salomon and they contended that Salomon & Co. Ltd was a fraud and contrary to the meaning and intent of the Companies Law.
    2/24/2010
    5
    Ghanshyam IILM Gurgaon
  • 14. Separate legal entity
    • A separate legal entity refers to a legal entity with accountability.
    • 15. SLE legally separate business from individual or owner
    Like limited liability company or a corporation
    2/24/2010
    6
    Ghanshyam IILM Gurgaon
  • 16. Contd….
    • It is a better form of existence for the reason it takes its responsibilities itself, owners are free from their personal liabilities and owners enjoy limited personal liability (risk) only up to their investments in stocks, though there may be certain situations where their personal responsibilities can exceed from limited liability concept.
    2/24/2010
    7
    Ghanshyam IILM Gurgaon
  • 17. Verdict by House of lords
    • The House of Lords did not find any form of fraud or deliberate abuse of the corporate form.
    • 18. on the contrary Salomon was a victim in that he did his best to rescue his company by cancelling the debenture he took and raising them to an outside creditor who provided fresh loan capital.
    2/24/2010
    8
    Ghanshyam IILM Gurgaon
  • 19.
    • This honesty and good faith on the part of Salomon prevented him from indemnifying the company creditors. The House of Lords found there is a legal entity properly formed and there was no use of lifting the veil between Salomon and his company. the business belonged to it and not to Mr Salomon.”
    2/24/2010
    9
    Ghanshyam IILM Gurgaon
  • 20.
    • As a result of the Court of Appeal refusal to recognize the existence of the legal entity.
    • 21. And regarding the company instead as a myth and fiction, they thought that the business belonged to Aron Salomon.
    2/24/2010
    10
    Ghanshyam IILM Gurgaon
  • 22. Conclusion
    The House of Lords found that honesty and good faith on Salomon’s part prevented him from assuring the company creditors as they knew they were dealing with a legal person totally different from his incorporators. Limited liability at that time was also available to sole traders and large investors who wanted some form of limit on their undertakings.
    2/24/2010
    11
    Ghanshyam IILM Gurgaon
  • 23. reference
    • www.hpb.usm.my/aziz/company.doc (23-01-10 at 8.30 pm).
    • 24. www.docstoc.com/docs/7624612/company (22-01-10 at 8.45 pm).
    • 25. www.slideshare.net (25-01-10 at 8.50 pm).
    • 26. www.coursework.info(23-01-10 at 9.30 pm).
    • 27. Mercantile Law by Avatar Singh.
    2/24/2010
    12
    Ghanshyam IILM Gurgaon

×