Business Law Assignment: Directing Mind and Piercing Corporate Veil

This assignment delves into two critical concepts within the realm of business law: 'Directing Mind and Will' and 'Piercing the Corporate Veil.' The first section elucidates the principle of 'Directing Mind and Will,' explaining how a corporation acts through its human agents and how the actions and intentions of these individuals can be attributed to the company itself. It distinguishes between the roles of those who direct the company and those who act as mere representatives or agents, emphasizing that the 'mind' of the company resides in its senior management and board members. The second section focuses on 'Piercing the Corporate Veil,' a legal doctrine that disregards the separation between a corporation and its shareholders, making the shareholders personally liable for the company's debts or actions under specific circumstances. The assignment provides context by referencing relevant legal cases and statutes, highlighting the implications of these doctrines for corporate liability and shareholder responsibility. The document concludes with a list of references.

Law of Business Organizations 1
Law of Business Organizations

Law of Business Organizations 2
Table of Contents
Research and explain the phrase “Directing Mind and Will”..........................................................3
Research and explain the phrase “Piercing the Corporate Veil”.....................................................4
References........................................................................................................................................5

Law of Business Organizations 3
Research and explain the phrase “Directing Mind and Will”
Human beings have a mind, this is the base of the doctrine that has intention or knowledge.
Human being has hand to take out his purpose and living person can be careless. While in the
case of corporation, things are different corporation act through the human beings. The person is
performing as the corporation itself who is not acting and talking for the company. The person is
not performing as representative, delegate, servant and agent. If that persons mind is guilty, in
that case that fault is the fault of the business. This kind of persons are only be the managing
director, additional superior executives and the member of board of directors of the business who
guide and works for the benefit of the company, perform, and talk for the business. The law must
ask this question that after analyzing all the facts, an individual should perform as a company or
he should be acting like servant, executive or agent of the company (Olendzki, 2011). At that
point, any legal responsibility of the business can only be a vicarious or legal liability.
Like the case of Tesco supermarkets, appellant was selling the washing powder at lower price
compare to market price but their competitors failed to find that lower price packet of washing
powder in the market and decide to filed case under the trade Description act, 1968. Now court
decides whether the company is guilty or living person. Because company is running by the
living person and company only known by the name (Nwafor, 2013).

Law of Business Organizations 4
Research and explain the phrase “Piercing the Corporate Veil”
Piercing the corporate veils is a legal term in which decisions to delight the privileges or
company responsibility as the constitutional rights or accountability of its shareholders.
Circumstances in which judicial body keep asides the restricted liability and company’s directors
or shareholders those are individually liable for the company’s debt or actions. Piercing the
corporate veil is mainly regular in close companies. Normally a company plays a separate legal
entity, which is exclusively liable for all the debts it earn and the only recipient of the credit that
is earned by the company. In spite of the term used, that formulates it become visible as through
a shareholder’s responsibility go out from the vision that a business is an individual legal entity.
The actuality is that the separate legal entity of the organization has nothing to do with the
liability of shareholders. Like, it is presents by the English law that individual status on
organization extensive earlier than shareholders be pay for restricted liability (Matheson, 2010).
Likewise, the revised uniform partnership act presents the separate status on joint venture, but
gives that associates are separately responsible for all the obligations of partnerships. Hence, this
investor limited liability goes out primarily from statue. Companies survive in part to defend the
individual resources of shareholders from personal accountability for the actions or debts of a
business. However, a sole proprietorship or common partnership in which the proprietor can be
treated accountable for the entire amount overdue of the organizations (Kryvoi, 2010).

Law of Business Organizations 5
References
Kryvoi, Y. (2010) Piercing the Corporate Veil in International Arbitration. Global Bus. L.
Rev., 1, pp. 169.
Matheson, J. H. (2010) Why Courts Pierce: An Empirical Study of Piercing the Corporate
Veil. Berkeley Bus. LJ, 7, pp. 1
Nwafor, A. O. (2013) Corporate Criminal Responsibility: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of
African Law, 57(1), pp. 81-107.
Olendzki, A. (2011) the construction of mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(01), pp. 55-
70.