18127915
Descripción
Test por gerard fauria, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por gerard fauria
hace casi 5 años
|
|
Pregunta 1
Pregunta
What is the key concern in cases after Salomon v Salomon?
Respuesta
-
Whether companies have separate legal personality
-
Whether companies are duly incorporated
-
Whether the controlling member tries to evade personal liabilities
Pregunta 2
Pregunta
The corporate veil will be pierced if the parent company owns all shares in a subsidiary.
Respuesta
- True
- False
Pregunta 3
Pregunta
In what context of consequences of a company's separate legal personality would you find Lee v Lee's Air Farming?
Respuesta
-
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)
Pregunta 4
Pregunta
What is the outcome of Persad v Singh?
Respuesta
-
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.
Pregunta 5
Pregunta
A statutory provision can vary the general rule of separate legal personality (i.e. pierce the veil) in pursuit of other policy objectives.
Respuesta
- True
- False
Pregunta 6
Pregunta
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?
Respuesta
-
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.
Pregunta 7
Pregunta
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.
Respuesta
- True
- False
Pregunta 8
Pregunta
Why did the Court decide to pierce the veil in the Petrodel v Prest case?
Respuesta
-
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.
Pregunta 9
Pregunta
A parent company will never be jointly or vicariously liable for the torts attributable to its subsidiary.
Respuesta
- True
- False
Pregunta 10
Pregunta
Which of the following does not apply to the narrow scope of the court's special power to pierce the veil?
Respuesta
-
Combat fraud
-
Prevent abuse by the company
-
Penalize unconscionable behaviour
Pregunta 11
Pregunta
What principle can explain the outcomes of Gilford Motor v Horne; and Jones v Lipman?
Respuesta
-
Evasion
-
Concealment
-
Resulting trust
Pregunta 12
Pregunta
The concealment principle involves piercing the veil.
Respuesta
- True
- False
Pregunta 13
Pregunta
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.
Respuesta
-
arguable
-
anchor
Pregunta 14
Pregunta
What case seems to open the doors to accept guidelines from the parent company as a means of assuming responsibility over the subsidiary?
Respuesta
-
AAA v Unilever
-
Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell
-
Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc
¿Quieres crear tus propios Tests gratis con GoConqr? Más información.