18127915
Description
Quiz by gerard fauria, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by gerard fauria
over 5 years ago
|
|
Question 1
Question
What is the key concern in cases after Salomon v Salomon?
Answer
-
Whether companies have separate legal personality
-
Whether companies are duly incorporated
-
Whether the controlling member tries to evade personal liabilities
Question 2
Question
The corporate veil will be pierced if the parent company owns all shares in a subsidiary.
Answer
- True
- False
Question 3
Question
In what context of consequences of a company's separate legal personality would you find Lee v Lee's Air Farming?
Answer
-
Company owns its own property
-
Legal proceedings (company sues and is sued in its own name)
-
Separate focus for contract (company enter into contracts into its own account)
Question 4
Question
What is the outcome of Persad v Singh?
Answer
-
Piercing the veil not accepted even when the owner tries to avoid personal liability.
-
Piercing the veil only if the owner tries to avoid personal liability.
-
Piercing the veil can be justified when a relationship of agency exists between the company and one of its controlling members.
Question 5
Question
A statutory provision can vary the general rule of separate legal personality (i.e. pierce the veil) in pursuit of other policy objectives.
Answer
- True
- False
Question 6
Question
Under which of the following circumstances we won't consider a company is an agent of a controlling member and, thus, the court pierces the veil?
Answer
-
If there are unusual circumstances raising a clear presumption that such agency relationship exists.
-
Where an express agency agreement is enforced.
-
Where there is a presumed resulting agency which is not rebutted.
Question 7
Question
For a member to directly accept liability as a guarantee he only needs to fill a legal form (under Statute of Fraus 1677 s.4), which must be written and signed by or on behalf of the guarantor.
Answer
- True
- False
Question 8
Question
Why did the Court decide to pierce the veil in the Petrodel v Prest case?
Answer
-
Unusual circumstances raising clear presumption of agency.
-
Prest directly accepted liability as a guarantee.
-
Presumed resulting trust which was not rebutted.
-
Unusual circumstances raising clear presumption of trust.
Question 9
Question
A parent company will never be jointly or vicariously liable for the torts attributable to its subsidiary.
Answer
- True
- False
Question 10
Question
Which of the following does not apply to the narrow scope of the court's special power to pierce the veil?
Answer
-
Combat fraud
-
Prevent abuse by the company
-
Penalize unconscionable behaviour
Question 11
Question
What principle can explain the outcomes of Gilford Motor v Horne; and Jones v Lipman?
Answer
-
Evasion
-
Concealment
-
Resulting trust
Question 12
Question
The concealment principle involves piercing the veil.
Answer
- True
- False
Question 13
Question
For a legal proceeding to be brought against an overseas company and its UK-based parent in UK courts there are 2 requirements: i) C establishes that there is an [blank_start]arguable[blank_end] case against at least one UK-based party ([blank_start]anchor[blank_end] defendant); ii) C has been affected by the activities of its overseas subsidiary.
Answer
-
arguable
-
anchor
Question 14
Question
What case seems to open the doors to accept guidelines from the parent company as a means of assuming responsibility over the subsidiary?
Answer
-
AAA v Unilever
-
Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell
-
Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc
Want to create your own Quizzes for free with GoConqr? Learn more.