Business Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Business Law - hear ExampleThis is selected because it contains rattling relevant explanations and outlines of how directors and shareholders are expected to relate towards the collective success of their companies. Several UK baptistry laws are also going to be analysed in such a way that by the check of the discussions, Mary and Joseph would clearly identify areas of legal liability in the conduct of their directors and areas where no legal liabilities exist. Directors profession Duty owed to the alliance and not individual shareholders First, it is important for Mary and Joseph to realise that prior to CA 2006, the directors owe their craft to the company as a body and not to individual shareholders of the company. However, it has been explained earlier that the company is only an artificial person, who must be represented by natural people. Mary and Joseph could therefore direct their actions in such ways that they are either seen as individual shareholders fighting for t heir interest in the company or as members of the company as a body1. ... Similarly, in Percival v Wright (1902), it was held that the director of the directors in rough instances owe fiduciary duties to individual shareholders of the company. By further implication, how a petitioner positions him or herself in cases against the adjudication of the duties of directos is very important in determining what the outcome of the petition would be3. Mary and Joseph will therefore be hash out to position their selves as constitute members of the company rather than as interested parties in the acquisition because of the directors commerce is owed to the company and not to individual shareholders4. Power to issue shares Further advice given to Mary and Joseph would bother on the power that the directors of the company have to issue shares. It would be noted that s 171 CA 2006, which touches on the duty of directors to act within powers clearly outlines the powers given to the directors to exercise powers for the purposes for which they are conferred5. As part of the powers, given by most companies to their directors also, there is the power for the issuance of shares where directors have the right to issue shares that they deem as acts advantageous ventures for the company6. In effect, the argument of Mary and Joseph cannot be against the mere issuance of shares in the acquisition process of the marcher firm. The acquisition of the subsidiary company with the issuance of shares could easily be justified by the directors through their power to issue shares if the purpose for the formation of the subsidiary company had finished serving its roles7. In pig v Cramphorn Ltd (1967), it was held that the directors of the company could not be charged for