Liability , Business Law and Ethics

Liability:

Liability under the section may arise on the death of a member if the death reduces the membership below the statutory minimum for the particular company and:

          (i) no transferee is registered as a new member, and

          (ii) the personal representative of the deceased member  does not elect to be registered as a member, within the prescribed six months.

It should be noted that the section limits a member's  liability to debts contracted after the six months. It does not make the member liable for any debts incurred during the six months which follow the reduction of  membership. Neither does it make a member liable for any tort committed by the company during the relevant time.

Subsection (1) of Section 109 of the Act requires a company's officers and other agents to write its name on its seal, letters, business documents and negotiable  instruments. This is to be done primarily for the benefit of third parties who might contract with a limited company without realising that it is a limited  company.

Subsection (4) of the section provides that any officer   or agent of the company who does not comply with the aforesaid statutory requirements shall be liable to a  fine not exceeding one thousand shillings, and shall further be personally liable to the holder of any bill of exchange, promissory note, cheque or order for goods which did not bear the company's correct name, unless the amount due thereon is duly paid by the company. The  imposition of personal liability on the company's agent is what is regarded, in a somewhat loose sense, as  "lifting the veil of incorporation". A probably better view would be to regard the section as a codification of the common law rule which makes an agent personally  liable under a contract which he enters into with a third party without disclosing that he is acting for a  principal. That, in effect, is what happens if a  company's agent does not comply with the statutory  requirement.

Liability under this section is illustrated by Nasau  Steam Press v Tyler & Others (7) and Penrose v Martyr  (8). In the latter case the plaintiff told the court  that she was NOT aware that the company was limited till after the bills were accepted. She had therefore been misled as to the legal status of the company. It should however be noted that the section does not require that the third party suing the company's officer should have been misled by the officer's failure to write the company's name correctly.

Posted Date: 1/12/2013 2:06:15 AM | Location : United States







Related Discussions:- Liability , Assignment Help, Ask Question on Liability , Get Answer, Expert's Help, Liability Discussions

Write discussion on Liability
Your posts are moderated
Related Questions
Raising Of Capital: In commercial parlance, the word 'capital' is generally used to denote the amount by which the assets of a business exceed its liabilities. Conversely, in

DISCLAIMER OF ASSETS: The liquidator has a statutory right of disclaimer of assets: s.135.  The rules are: (a)     he must obtain leave of the court; (b)     the right o

During the first lecture students asked for some assessments topics to guide them in the decisions that they need to take. Please note that: 1   Students may still formulate the

John owns a 1951 Mercedes Sl that he wishes to sell. He instructs Ross to sell the car, and in return, will be paid £5,000 commission. Ross manages to find a buyer, Paul, Paul and

Function of the Registered Office:                          Section 107(1) provides that a company shall, as from the day on which it begins to carry on business or as from th

State the theory of international antitrust A fourth approach is the allocation of jurisdiction over conduct with multijurisdictional effects to one agency by another agency th

Game theoretic approach to multiparty coalition The seminal work, for the study of game theoretic approach to multiparty coalition formation is Ricker's (1962) titled the theor

Complaints made against the auditors: These are the most simple principles that such have to be applied to cases of this description. I protest, however, against the notion

Variation of class rights: It is only necessary to follow the variation of class rights procedure (and a dissenting minority can only apply to the court for cancellation)  if

Financial Assistance For Purchase Of Own Shares: i) Financial Assistance For Purchase Of Own Shares S.56 (1) of the Act renders it unlawful for a company to give there wher