14.01.2013 Views

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

treating a corporation as having similar traits to human being is not without<br />

difficulties, especially in connection with criminal liability and other areas <strong>of</strong> law<br />

where intention is relevant. 5<br />

Dewey argued that the conception <strong>of</strong> 'person' is a legal conception; roughly, the term<br />

'person' signifies what the law makes it signify. 6 In technical legal terms, person<br />

could be interpreted as a group <strong>of</strong> legal relations and not a human being, which is the<br />

common definition normally found in ordinary literature and common speech. 7<br />

Blumberg, on the other hand, argued that such a conclusion did not address all the<br />

problems associated with corporate personality since legal theories are animate<br />

concepts and are kept alive by judges in their judgments. 8 He also reasoned that<br />

culture has an impact on the use <strong>of</strong> language, 9 hence the word „person‟ in reference<br />

to a corporation may have started <strong>of</strong>f as an analogy, but later it led to a connotation<br />

<strong>of</strong> the characteristics <strong>of</strong> a person. 10<br />

It has to be acknowledged that a corporation, despite having a status similar to a<br />

human being, does not have capabilities similar to a human being. 11 A corporation<br />

5 Michael J. Whincop An Economic and Jurisprudential Genealogy <strong>of</strong> Corporate Law (Ashgate<br />

Dartmouth, 2001) at 49. See also the judgment <strong>of</strong> Buckley L.J. in Continental Tyre and Rubber Co<br />

(G.B.) Ltd v Daimler Co [1915] 1 K.B. 893 at 916 <strong>The</strong> artificial legal person called the corporation<br />

has no physical existence. It exists only in contemplation <strong>of</strong> law. It has neither body, parts, nor<br />

passions. It cannot wear weapons nor serve in wars. It can neither be loyal nor disloyal. It cannot<br />

compass treason. It can be neither friend nor enemy. Apart from its corporators it can have neither<br />

thoughts, wishes nor intentions, for it has no mind other than minds <strong>of</strong> the corporators.<br />

6 John Dewey “<strong>The</strong> Historical Background <strong>of</strong> Corporate Legal Personality” (1926) 35 Yale LJ 655 at<br />

655.<br />

7 Max Radin “<strong>The</strong> Endless Problem <strong>of</strong> Corporate Personality” (1932) Columbia LR 643 at 647.<br />

8 Phillip Blumberg “<strong>The</strong> Corporate Entity in an era <strong>of</strong> Multi-National Corporation” (1990) 15<br />

Delaware JCL 283 at 324 [Corporate Entity].<br />

9 See article by Sanford A. Schane “<strong>The</strong> Corporation is a Person: <strong>The</strong> Language <strong>of</strong> a Legal Fiction”<br />

[1987] 61 Tulane LR 563.<br />

10 Blumberg “Corporate Entity” above n8 at 324.<br />

11 John Farrar “Frankenstein Incorporated or Fools‟ Parliament? Revisiting the Concept <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Corporation in Corporate Governance” (1998) 10 Bond LR 142 at 149-150 [Frankenstein].<br />

74

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!