FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W305875391> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W305875391 startingPage "289" @default.
• W305875391 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION The very phrase the corporate evokes an image of surgical, well-defined procedure by which courts venture beyond the general rule of limited liability for corporate shareholders-a practice that applies the most precise of legal standards, to be used only in the most severe cases of obvious injustice. In truth, however, the boundaries of this exception are usually stated in broad terms that offer little or no guidance to judges or litigants in subsequent cases,1 nor is its application limited to only the most egregious abuses of the privilege of limited liability. In fact, when requested to do so, courts the of the defendant corporation greater than forty percent of the time.2 Eighty-five years ago, Cardozo recognized that the law in this area is enveloped in the mists of metaphor.3 The disturbing thing about foggy area of law is that the uncertainty creates prime opportunity for courts to disturb, under the cover of the law's ambiguity, validly executed, freely negotiated agreements. If Cardozo's description is still accurate, and it seems to be, then the least we can do is apply fitting metaphor to whatever it is we often see courts doing in the cases where they disregard corporation's limited liability-and frequently this phenomenon could be aptly described as the corporate shield. This metaphor would be more appropriate for three reasons. First, courts routinely pay lip service to the strength of the corporate structure with statements that sound something like this: A firmly entrenched doctrine of American law is the that a corporation is considered legal entity separate and distinct from its officers, directors and shareholders.4 Being that the doctrine of limited liability is supposedly so sacred, the word veil seems to be an inappropriate term indeed because it connotes something easily swept aside. Therefore, if term is to be used that more closely approximates the judicial description of this phenomenon, shield would be much more appropriate than veil. Second, it is widely recognized that the concept of 'limited liability' is considered the central purpose for choosing the corporate form.5 Therefore, individuals who choose to operate in the corporate form are primarily doing so with the expectancy that they will be shielded from liability-that they will receive more protection than the word veil connotes. Thus shield would also more closely approximate the expectations of parties who choose the corporate form of business.6 Third, if we look beyond the facade of jurisprudence and observe what courts are actually doing when the corporate form (be it called or shield) is disregarded, it is clear that, whatever it is, it is quite often not piercing. From the word pierce we would expect jurisprudence that delicately fettered out only the most disgusting abuses of the corporate form. However, some courts are willing to disregard the corporate entity in cases where the only justification for doing so is the absence of few corporate formalities that have been ignored by the incorporator(s).7 Other courts are not even sure whether there is presumption for or against the veil.8 In light of this imprecision and disorganization, the often bumbling application of the piercing tests could more correctly be titled bashing. This discussion, of course, is largely game of semantics. However, if courts applied more appropriate metaphor to their actions, perhaps the incongruity between their often disingenuous statements of the law and their actual application of that law9 would become more apparent and their jurisprudence more coherent. Nowhere has this bashing been more illogical than in the context of corporations who have breached contracts (as opposed to situations where the corporation has committed tort). Intuitively, one would think that would be much more common in cases where the corporation has committed tort because, obviously, we usually have no control over the identity of our tortfeasors, whereas with whom we contract is matter of choice. …" @default.
• W305875391 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W305875391 creator A5031445514 @default.
• W305875391 date "2003-01-01" @default.
• W305875391 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W305875391 title "Bashing the Corporate Shield: The Untenable Evisceration of Freedom of Contract in the Corporate Context" @default.
• W305875391 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W305875391 type Work @default.
• W305875391 sameAs 305875391 @default.
• W305875391 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W305875391 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W305875391 hasAuthorship W305875391A5031445514 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C25253098 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C2776697845 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C2778311575 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C2778348171 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C2779103253 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C2779589421 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C39389867 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C75701414 @default.
• W305875391 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C10138342 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C138885662 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C144024400 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C144133560 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C151730666 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C17744445 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C190253527 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C199539241 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C25253098 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C2776697845 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C2778311575 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C2778348171 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C2779103253 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C2779343474 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C2779589421 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C39389867 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C41895202 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C75701414 @default.
• W305875391 hasConceptScore W305875391C86803240 @default.
• W305875391 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W305875391 hasLocation W3058753911 @default.
• W305875391 hasOpenAccess W305875391 @default.
• W305875391 hasPrimaryLocation W3058753911 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W1575782359 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W1604736893 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W1907215780 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W1969180512 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W1973253419 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W2168650876 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W2262856126 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W2317787259 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W2583849411 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W258597523 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W28599941 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W3021247256 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W30231803 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W3124407569 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W3125557048 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W321381592 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W45395194 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W819910590 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W955500698 @default.
• W305875391 hasRelatedWork W1905827026 @default.
• W305875391 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W305875391 isParatext "false" @default.
• W305875391 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W305875391 magId "305875391" @default.
• W305875391 workType "article" @default.