I heard this debate about whether or not companies can be considered « persons, » and I did not understand the laws behind it. Companies are not giant humanoids who walk around selling cars or hamburgers for a living. They are « humans » in the sense that they work as a unit, much like humans are billions of cells working together as one creature. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that many legal scholars call a victory for corporate rights. The decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, expanded corporate freedom of expression by declaring it unconstitutional to prohibit corporations from participating in election expenses and campaigns. While critics see this decision as tantamount to allowing corporate-sponsored applicants in the future, proponents argue that it is unfair to grant legal personality that grants equal responsibilities but not equal rights. Not all organizations have legal personality.
For example, directors of a corporation, legislature or government agency are generally not legal entities because they do not have the ability to exercise legal rights independently of the corporation or political body to which they belong. Since the Industrial Revolution, when corporations came to power, the boundaries of a legal entity have been the subject of constant debate. While granting personality can help hold companies legally accountable for their actions, it also opens the door to many more complex issues. For example, if a company has a personality distinct from its shareholders or owners, some argue that it should also have individual rights such as voting rights. However, when voting rights are granted, shareholders are actually entitled to vote twice: once as an individual and once in the personality of the company. Since this conflicts with most electoral systems, it remains a controversial issue in legal circles. In Act II, scene 1 of Gilbert and Sullivan`s 1889 opera The Gondoliers, Giuseppe Palmieri (who, with his brother Marco, is king of Barataria) asks that he and his brother be recognized separately so that they can each receive individual portions of food, because they have « two independent appetites ». However, it is rejected by the court (composed of other gondoliers) because the common rule ». is a legal person, and legal persons are solemn things. The concept of legal personality for organizations of persons is at least as old as in ancient Rome: a multitude of collegiate institutions enjoyed the advantage of Roman law. A corporation is a « person » within the meaning of constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws and due process. In legal proceedings involving animals, animals have the status of « legal persons » and humans have a legal obligation to act as « loco parentis » for the welfare of animals, as a parent does to minor children.
A court ruled in 2014 in the case « Animal Welfare Board of India vs Nagaraja » that animals are also entitled to the fundamental right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution[23], i.e. the right to life, personal liberty and the right to die with dignity (passive euthanasia). In another case, a court in the state of Uttarakhand ordered animals to have the same rights as humans. In another cow smuggling case, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana ordered that « the entire animal kingdom, including species of birds and aquatic animals » should have a « separate legal personality with the corresponding rights, duties and responsibilities of a living person » and that humans be « loco parentis » while setting standards for animal welfare, veterinary treatment, food and shelter, for example. Wagons hauled by animals must not have more than four persons and carriers must not be loaded beyond the established limits, and these limits must be halved if the animals are to carry the load on a slope. [22] The term « legal person » can be ambiguous as it is often used as a synonym for terms referring only to non-human legal persons, particularly as opposed to « natural person ». [10] [11] Some common law systems distinguish between a corporation (e.g., a multi-member corporation) and a single corporation, which is a public office with a separate legal personality from the person holding the office (both entities have separate legal personality). Historically, most bodies have been exclusively ecclesiastical in nature (for example, the office of Archbishop of Canterbury is a single body), but a number of other public functions are now formed as single bodies.
In court cases involving natural entities, the Uttarakhand High Court has ordered that the Ganges and Yamuna rivers, as well as all waters, be « living entities », i.e. « legal persons », and appointed three persons as trustees to protect the rights of rivers from man-made pollution, such as « pilgrims` bathing rituals ». [22] The concept of legal personality is not absolute. `penetration of the corporate veil` means the consideration of natural persons acting as agents involved in an act or decision of society; This may lead to a court decision treating the rights or obligations of a company or public limited company as rights or obligations of the members or directors of that company. There are therefore two types of legal entities: human and non-human. In law, a human person is designated as a natural person (sometimes also as a natural person), and a non-human person is called a legal person (sometimes also as a legal, legal, artificial, legal or fictitious person, Latin: persona ficta). Brazilian law recognizes any association or abstract entity as a legal entity, but a registry is required by a constitutional document, with specifications that depend on the category of legal entity and the local law of the state and city. In lawsuits involving corporations, shareholders are not liable for the company`s debts, but the company itself, as a « legal entity », is obliged to repay those debts or be sued for non-repayment of debts.
[22] Section 28 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 provides: « . the provisions of this Bill of Rights apply, to the extent possible, for the benefit of all legal persons and all natural persons. In everyday language, a human being; However, depending on the law, the term may include companies, labour organizations, partnerships, associations, companies, legal representatives, trustees, receivers or insolvency practitioners. A corporation confers rights and obligations under the law on a person or organization. Since legal systems are designed for human use, legal personality is usually automatically attributed to human beings. In the modern world, the concept is often part of discussions about the legal rights or responsibilities of entities such as companies that cannot be defined by a single person. The concept was and still is an important part of the human rights debate. For more information about legal entities, see this article from the Yale Law Journal, this article from the Wake Forest Law Review, and the Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs. The other case where a legal entity becomes an important issue is when the entity in question is not a human being but a corporation, partnership or corporation.
Since laws generally only provide for the conduct and rights of individuals, it became important to know the extent to which non-individual entities had legal rights and obligations as these types of organizations became more common and powerful. For example, since laws generally only set rules about how one person sues another person, a company may be impervious to prosecution unless some form of personality is granted. Legal entity means a human or non-human entity that is treated as a person for limited legal purposes. According to Indian law, « shebaitship » is the property belonging to the deity or idol as a « legal person ». People who are destined to act in the name of divinity are called « shebait ». A shebait acts as guardian or guardian of the deity to protect the right of the deity and fulfill the legal duties of the deity. Shebait is similar to a trustee if the deity or temple has a legally registered trust or legal entity. According to Hindu law, goods given or offered as rituals or gifts, etc. absolutely belong to the deity and not to the shebait.
The case studies are « Profulla Chrone Requitte vs Satya Chorone Requitte », AIR 1979 SC 1682 (1686): (1979) 3 SCC 409: (1979) 3 SCR 431. (ii) » and « Shambhu Charan Shukla v. Thakur Ladli Radha Chandra Madan Gopalji Maharaj, AIR 1985 SC 905 (909): (1985) 2 SCC 524: (1985) 3 SCR 372 ». [24] Foreign governments that would otherwise have the right to sue in U.S. courts are « persons » entitled to seek triple damages for alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A.