Documents For Purpose Of Deceiving Others â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Documents For Purpose Of Deceiving Others? Answer: Introducation Directing Mind and Will- Doctrine was introduced by the law for the purpose of determining the liability of the corporation in both civil and criminal wrong conduct by the agents and servants of the company. In this theory law consider the mind collectively and individually of the person who directs the management of the company, the mind of the company itself. This doctrine is known as the doctrine of Directing mind and will. In case law DPP v. Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd, Court held that company was liable under two offences that were, company made statement which was not true and company use false documents for the purpose of deceiving others. Therefore, Divisional Court stated that company was held liable for both the offences, because officers of the company had intention to deceive. This intention of the officers of the company will be considered as intention of the company itself. There is one more case law Sugarloaf Hill Nominees Pty Ltd v Rewards Projects Ltd [2011] WASC 19. In this case, Supreme Court of Australia recently considers this doctrine and makes the company liable for the acts of directors. High Court stated that this doctrine is based on the principle where individual is or individual are considered as representative of the organization. This law was recently considered by Australian Court in business-law Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563. In this case, court made the corporate responsible on the basis of the knowledge of corporate officers. In case Salomon v Salomon, Court held that after the incorporation of the company it is considered as the separate legal entity. In other words, it is considered as new legal entity which is separate from its members. In case law, Peate v Federal Commissioner of Taxation Court stated Company is the new person in the eyes of law. Organization is considered as separate legal entity and its assets and liabilities are different from its members and directors. It must be noted that only company is liable for breaches of contracts and other liabilities, but this fundamental principal is rejected by Court in some cases. Court lifts the corporate veil for the purpose of making the members liable. In some particular situations court has power to lift the corporate veil, which means creditors and third parties has right to access the assets of members and directors of the company. In case of corporate group, creditors has right to access the assets of the subsidiary company. It must be noted that Court lifts the corporate veil in very exceptional cases and not in every case, because of which it becomes difficult to explain the exact reasons of lifting the corporate veil. Generally, piercing of corporate veil is done by the Court when any person uses the identity of corporate for dishonest and improper purpose. Rogers AJA said in case Briggs v James Hardie Co Pty, there was no fundamental principle which defines the occasional decision of Court to Pierce the corporate veil. Reference: Briggs v James Hardie Co Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 549. D.P.P. v Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd [1944] K.B. 146). Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563. Peate v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - [1966] HCA 29. Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. Sugarloaf Hill Nominees Pty Ltd v Rewards Projects Ltd [2011] WASC 19.