Directing Mind and Piercing Veil for Law-myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theDirecting Mind and Piercing Veil for Law. Answer: Introduction: The present case is based on the two phrases of company law that are the directing mind and will and piercing corporate veil. Both the terms are important regarding the company related matters and it is important to find out the real interpretation of the terms. It has been observed that there is a mentality grows among the company directors to find any excuse to safe their interest by hiding themselves behind the shadow of the company and therefore, there is a complicated situation arose. These terms made an initiative to resolve the problem by way of a defence in favour of a company regarding all cases. Discussion: Directing Mind and Will: An analysis regarding the directing mind and will reveals that the persons who are sitting at the top of the company including the board of directors. It is a well principle of law that a company is a separate legal entity that is proved in the case of Salomon v. Salomon. Therefore, a company should not be held liable for the acts of any of its employee. However, this is also true that the company cannot perform its work by itself or without the help of the others. The case related to directing mind and will was developed in the year 1944 in the case of DPP v Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd, where the court was pleased to observe that the company can be held liable for any illegal act as the mind of the company is regulated by the directors who have the knowledge regarding the outcome of it (Lipsitt 2013). It was held in Lennards Carrying Co. Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd, it was held that the Board of Directors of the company are the persons who are involving in the action relating to the directing mind and will (De Wet 2017). There are certain acts that are not written under the constitution of the company but are related integrally to the functioning of the company. These actions are regulated by the board of directors and if there is any breach occurred regarding the same, the company will be held liable under the version of directing mind and will as held in Tesco Supermarket v Nattrass (1971) UKHL 1. Piercing the Corporate Veil: It is a well known principle of law that a company is a separate legal entity and therefore, for any kind of liability, the company cannot be held liable. It standardise the rights and liabilities of a corporation. In case of the common law country, there is leaning mentality regarding the corporate veil observed. However, in certain circumstances, these rules are pierced (Yadav 2017). Suppose a company was held liable for certain fraud cases. When the affected party sue the company as a whole, they will held the company liable for the same. It is a fact that the company cannot perform their job alone and the directors and other shareholders of the company regulating the company. When the company is getting registered, a veil regarding the separate liability cropped up. When certain allegation made against the company, it will be the duty of the court to analyse the matter and replace the main culprit of the case by lifting the corporate veil (Flint 2016). In Gilford Motor Co. Ltd v Horne, it has been observed that the corporate veil of the corporation can be uplifted where it is required regarding the appropriate cases. Conclusion: Therefore, from the case, it has been held that the principle regarding the separate entity of the company can be upheld in certain situation. The main objective of this report is to find out the grounds where the director of the company shall be held liable for any illegal acts. Reference: De Wet, M., 2017. Directing'The Absolute': towards destabilising the victim/perpetrator binary in Sam Shepard's A lie of the mind (1985) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria). Flint, D., 2016. Incentives, Employers, and the Corporate Veil: Should Domestic Corporations Be More Accountable for the Actions of Their Overseas Subsidiaries?. Ariz. St. LJ, 48, p.833. Lipsitt, L.P., 2013. impression of outside objects, whether agreeable or offensive; but the mind, possessed of a self-directing power, may turn its attention to whatever it thinks proper. It should, therefore, be employed in the most useful pursuits, not barely in contemplation but in such contemplation as may. Early Influences Shaping The Individual, 161, p.207. Yadav, P.K., 2017. Lifting of Corporate Veil.