In this Legal Business law assignment, a deep Analysis has been done for the Solomon Vs. Solomon to fulfill the requirements of case study in business law study.
It is observed that case studies in learning of business law have made effective results for students, researchers and professionals in legislative sector. In this report, the Solomon Vs Solomon co. Ltd. is considered for presenting business study analysis (Lacey and Toepke, 1985). Through understanding of mentioned case study, the report is consisting analysis, findings and solutions for case study to resolve issues. It will focus on demand of learning made by student and required knowledge of company and proprietorship for assets, liability and liquidation process. In this report, the legal action taken for issues and respective solutions in Solomon V Solomon Co. Ltd. are discussed.
Analysis of Solomon V Solomon CO. LTD. case
When an owner of business is the key stakeholder in business then that human being is considered as separate entity for business firm. A company is considered as separate entity and any legal procedure for that company is kept as business entity as legal person. The case study of Solomon v Solomon Co. Ltd. is consists of terms and conditions which are accessed by British court, facts considered in case study, house of Lord, principles of legal case, code of conduct, statutory procedure and understanding of legal liabilities for its stakeholders (Solomon v Solomon Co. Ltd. case study, 2015).
Analysis of Background of case for Solomon v Solomon Co. Ltd.
Solomon has converted his personal business of leather as Solomon & Solomon Co. Ltd. which has key stakeholders as Solomon and his wife and five children to develop business partnership. So that formed firm is considered that this business form is owned by listed stakeholders through cash, debentures and assts ownership. The shares are floated for creditors of business. Due to business failure, Solomon v Solomon Co. Ltd. has come in liquidation stage which has created issues for Solomon to liquidate debentures of own. The creditors with insecurity in business have blamed company for being agent of Solomon. Further, this firm has been sued for legal case in British court by creditors to recover investments (Holleman, 1973). The appeal of creditors is considered by British court and it is mentioned that there are seven people who can be considered for registering firm which can be incorporated as business firm. Although it is noticed that the stakeholder’s of Solomon & Solomon Co. Ltd were not satisfied with decision taken for enrolling different business values which are owned by single person as Solomon.
It is observed that remaining family members of Solomon has never planned to take share and interest in decision making for different business practices. It is considered that company and individual person whether owner, manager, key stakeholder or member of board are considered for effective proprietorship in family business which is stated by Lord Macnaghten. It is considered that subscribers in company are considered as separate entity from company and a company is registered and operate as legal entity distinctive from membership. The legal ownership of business is considered under the name of key stakeholder for business decision making (Choi, 2008). Ant code of conduct or legal action is taken on company directly accept that individual person working in that company like Solomon & Solomon Co. Ltd. Hence, the house of Lord has stated that Solomon & Solomon Co. Ltd is a valid firm which is having shares as at least one for each of member in business. There are separate rules and policies for Solomon & Solomon Co. Ltd which are incorporated at the time of forming and registering business through industry, corporate affair department of business etc. So it is understood that whole business and relevant practices are associated to Solomon & Solomon Co. Ltd as unique identity unless Solomon as agent in its business. With identification of legal codes and Act for company ownership, it is noticed that a business firm does not belongs to a person hence person belongs to that registered business firm.
The principle incorporated Solomon & Solomon Co. Ltd
According to house of Lord, following principles and standards are mentioned in case of Solomon & Solomon Co. Ltd.
- Artificial Person: The mentioned company Solomon & Solomon Co. Ltd is considered as an artificial personality which is having separate identity and practices in market place for selling and earning different values through establishing business operation. Each decision taken for managing tools and technologies of legal consideration in Solomon & Solomon Co. Ltd, the Law and Act for proprietorship and allegation can be considered as artificial entity (Edwards, 2014). The manager or any other stakeholder cannot show legal rights on business unless and until having 100% shares of proprietorship. With standard practices involved in business, the manager, chief execution officer or other subscriber will not be considered for nature and behaviour in market. All the actions taken by company will be considered as individual decisions in its business.
- Limited Liability: The liability of shareholders and its business stakeholders is limited to people considered for business failure, risks and loss. There are required legal actions and parameters which restrict the liability of owner for acting as If the company is limited by shares. The There are various business operations in Solomon & Solomon Co. Ltd which has given negative outcomes in the time period of one year from its commencement. Hence, the strategic changes and respective impact is considered for company as entity rather that stakeholder. The negative practices and bad effects of business practices are not applicable to its users rather than its required changes in business. Any legal action for selling personal property and ownership is not restricted to agent of firm. There is a limited liability of people associated to company as per their individual share in company. For example Solomon & Solomon Co. Ltd has got business failure and liquidation is processed so unsecured creditors payment is liable on Solomon and its family as per his stake in business (Dhooge and Eakin, 2007). The unlimited liability of such stakeholder restricts them to clear whole debt on company which is not considered in case of Solomon & Solomon Co. Ltd. For example, the principle of limited liability is considered for clamming compensation from owner of firm which is providing products which are getting bad market responses and customer review. In this case, the customer cannot claim on the employees of manufacturing and selling firm until he/she is not having profitability or loss liability in business. It is seen that benefits and profitability in terms of money or assets can be earned by any person with legal formalities and artificial ownership of business. So such persons can be asked for recovery of damage of business or debt of firm. It is observed that being in a limited firm is better choice for its stakeholders and owners so that respective liabilities can be minimized with legal actions associated to business damages. The strategic changes to business decision making can be taken through considering liability limitations in business. So the investment decisions of creditors can be taken from meeting demands (Reder, 2009). So it help in resolving issues of fraud and business management though restricting owners and other shareholders to take action on demanded functions in legal policy and procedure. For example, Solomon has been liable for the share percentage which takes liability of relevant ration in business. So Solomon is identified as different entity which is apart from liability to pay unsecured stakeholders in business of leather for Solomon & Solomon Co. Ltd. Although the court has observed need of implementing some stringent legal action and policy for considering needs of business management and liability division with equal margin. Te interested person in business is required to follow some legal policy and actions so that effective outcomes can be managed for retaining accuracy and restricting fraud and misleading by stakeholders in business firms.
- Legal standards and principles: It is understood that limited liability and artificial ownership can provide useful features for starting business firm as limited company. So the people of different firms can miss uses such legal practices which will provide loss to the creditors and investors in business (Lacey and Toepke, 1985). It is understood that necessary information of legal restriction, leniency in operating business or starting limited firm are required to be considered for setting stringent legislation. Because of cases like minimizing membership from various business firm for consisting different techniques to misuse lenient law. If the membership of company will be reduced from a minimum required number then all remaining members will be responsible for giving recovery for debts and other liabilities in business.
- False trading: For business firm and its stakeholders who are promoting wrong information in their business quotations, planning and practices for legal practices and rights of customers, the responsible person are made liable for bad implication by code of conducts in country or industry. For example if the company has provided wrong name instead of actual, the management person takes own decisions to deal without assessing genuine authority or the buyer or supplier of firm is deal with incorrect bill of exchange then it is required to take legal action against responsible stakeholders.
- Illegal activity: If any illegal practice or offence is done by member of company management, the legal action is taken for making him liable to fill the losses in business whether fine or legal punishment is given (Holleman, 1973). For doing cheat with existing firm and its stakeholders, the forgery case is filled on criminal in business which takes care of charging monitory fine, collection of personal assets, ceasing bank accounts etc. The business firm can publicly announce the criminal activity done by such members alongside sue for acting illegal to damage goodwill of firm. For the person who is trying to promote the business firm with illegal resources and false information publishing, the court will have strict punishment to manage business values of company.
The findings of research and study of Solomon v Solomon Co. Ltd., it is observed that different tools and technologies available for accessing details of legal policies and practices in business firms can make useful outcomes to reduce number of issues. The understanding of similar legal cases and recordings of action taken by courts are followed by management to control various decisions (Edwards, 2014). It is noticed that changes and modifications can be noticed through attaining business objectives and existing standards of legal actions in such organizations. Through better learning of legal practices and Acts designed for controlling illegal actions in business, the business organizations can be provided support for resolving relevant issues. The court and judicial authorities are also following different case study of business law which help in taking decision making planning and strategy in some critical cases. After practicing such judicial practices, the legal Acts and laws are designed for industry and its stakeholders to protect rights of company and its genuine stakeholders.
The key findings of research study are as followings:
- With understanding of required considerations and right protection for each individual in business, the legal policies and practices are required to be followed strictly.
- In case of Solomon v Solomon Co. Ltd legal issues, the restrictions and relevant action can be taken for managing different business values (Dhooge and Eakin, 2007). The idea of sharing knowledge and experience of working with such organization need to be communicated to relevant regulation and legal code making body.
- The understanding of different code of practices and legislative rights is required for taking respective actions which needs to be concluded through research analysis of issues and impact in business. The legislative rights and action policy is essential for stakeholders and business firm. With identifying needs of key practices associated to implementing legal changes and monitoring by legal bodies in business, the courts are taking decision for restricting misleading, forgery and illegal action by stakeholder in company.
- A company is identified as separate entity rather than ownership of any person. With limited or unlimited liability factors of business, the properties of business management can be analysed and reviewed for controlling such cases.
- Various propertied like legal policies and standards, codes of corporate practices, legislation for illegal activities etc. can be managed through guiding different principles in business (Choi, 2008).
- The conclusion on various business decisions are required to be taken through following industrial and company set parameters which should be abide by legal standards and practices in business. Through attaining different business objectives and factors, the meeting legal requirements for business deal and other functions is identified crucial for understanding business case study like Solomon v Solomon Co. Ltd.
- With attainment of all necessary information access from genuine resources of legislative standards and Acts, the stakeholders and company should be treated for betterment of all associated members in business (Kieff and Paredes, 2010).
- Implementing effectiveness of legal procedures while considering research and development in legal case study for learners and professionals in business.
- Following all the industrial and target country policies for implementing changes in business decisions whether liquidation or initiation.
With understanding made from learning glimpse of Solomon v Solomon Co. Ltd case, the requirements of stakeholders and company can be concluded in legal actions taken by court. The company is identified to be treated as individual entity rather than its agents to be involved in legal liability put from creditors. It is necessary to create awareness among people of organization which will have knowledge of different terms and conditions in business. All the principles of research and development of legal policies and practices identified in case study will have important role in taking decision.
- Choi, C., 2008. A Study on Legal theory & Cases of Compensation in Sports Accidents. thejournalofsportsandentertainmentlaw, 11(1), pp.297-316.
- Dhooge, L. and Eakin, C., 2007. Student Ratings and Evaluation in Undergraduate Business Law Assignment Help : A Modest Correlative Study. J Legal Studies Education, 24(2), pp.203-234.
- Edwards, M., 2014. Teaching Consumer Price Discrimination: An Interdisciplinary Case Study for Business Law Students. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 31(2), pp.291-324.
- Holleman, J., 1973. Trouble-Cases and Trouble-Less Cases in the Study of Customary Law and Legal Reform. Law & Society Review, 7(4), p.585.
- Kieff, F. and Paredes, T., 2010. Perspectives on corporate governance. Cambridge [U.K.]: Cambridge University Press.
- Lacey, J. and Toepke, U., 1985. EEC Competition Law: Business Issues and Legal Principles in Common Market Antitrust Cases. The American Journal of International Law, 79(3), p.837.
- Reder, M., 2009. Case Study of Apple, Inc. for Business Law Students: How Apple’s Business Model Controls Digital Content Through Legal and Technological Means. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 26(1), pp.185-209.
- Solomon v Solomon Co. Ltd. case study. 2015. [online]. Available at: <http://www00.unibg.it/dati/corsi/65081/62134-Salomon%20v%20Salomon%20&%20Co.pdf/> [Accessed on: 9 Dec 2015].
Assignment Help Sydney is the venture of the OZ Assignment dedicated for the assignment help of the students of the Sydney schools, colleges and universities.