Contractual Problems for Kent and Sussex Ltd- myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theContractual Problems for Kent and Sussex Ltd. Answer: Introduction: The principle regarding the two terms of the report is related to the company law. It is to be stated that the phrases of this report have been important in nature regarding the legal nature of the company and it is necessary to define the provision of the terms practically so that it is possible to understand the scope of the two terms. Discussion: Directing Mind and will: There is no particular definition provided in any of the legislation regarding the essentiality of the terms directing mind and will. It can be stated literally that the term denotes the person who are generally directed the mind and will of the company (De Wet 2017). It is a well principle of law that company has a separate legal entity and the company will not be held liable for the wrongful acts of the directors or the shareholders of the company. It is a fact that though the company is a separate legal entity and it is not liable for any acts of the member of the company, it is not a person (Flint 2016). It is not possible for the company to work alone without the help of the directors and stakeholders. In certain case law, it has been observed that the directors will be held liable if there is any discrepancies happened regarding the company matter. The same principle was adopted in the case of DPP v Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd [1944] KB 146. The necessity regarding the directing the mind and will was followed in the case of the Lennards Carrying Co. Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd [1915] AC 705. The directors of the company are usually engaged with the company affairs and take all the important decisions. It was observed by the court in Tesco Supermarket v Nattrass (1971) UKHL 1 that if the Board of Director of any company had made any such breach, the affected party has the choice to sue the company under the provision of directing mind and will. Piercing the Corporate Veil: The doctrine regarding the piercing the corporate veil is a general defence that support the separate legal entity of the company. It has been proved by the court in several occasions that a company cannot in any way be held liable for the wrongful acts of the management. Therefore, it can be stated that the rights and liabilities of the company is quite different from the rights of its corporal body (Lipsitt 2013). It is a well principle of law that company has a separate legal entity and the company will not be held liable for the wrongful acts of the directors or the shareholders of the company. One of the essential cases regarding the matter is Salomon v Salomon Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. The doctrine has helped to standardised the role of a company and conceptualise the fact that the directors of a company could not hide himself behind the legal veil of the company. If there is any chance, law will restrain them to do so. The word corporate veil prescribes the duty of a corporation as the duty of the shareholders. Piercing the corporate veil is antonym to the word corporate veil. In this case, the director of the company will be held liable for their own acts. It has been regarded that if any allegation made against the company regarding the wrongful acts of the management, it is the duty of the court to find out the offender without inking the legal character of the company (Yadav 2017). Conclusion: Therefore, from the above-mentioned grounds it can be proved that both the principles are important regarding the company affairs and certain provisions have been imposed on the directors of the company for their wrongful 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.