Talk:Legal personality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics / Corporatism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Corporatism task force.
 

/Archive 1

Merge suggested on corporate personhood debate[edit]

There was a suggested merge, but no discussion on talk. Cleaned up tags and archived old talk in prep for cleanup. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Have to say, I find the Not to be confused with Corporate personhood sign on top is rather confusing... and not only because of the section called Controversies about "corporate personhood" in the United States. Littledogboy (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

U.S. section - POV questionable[edit]

The section on corporate personhood in the U.S. sounds like the Supreme Court's decision is an unquestionably good idea, with only a few people in opposition to it. Only one "social commenter" is named as being against the ruling. There are many other people in media, government, and just plain folks who also think it's a bad idea, and so the section is very one-sided. I don't have time to beef it up, but someone who does have the time may want to look it over and edit for POV. Textorus (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the entry on corporate personhood says that the origin of that term is the 1819 case Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. I'm having trouble understanding why that case is then not mentioned in this section, since it would seem a lot less controversial, being an actual ruling. But in any case, shouldn't both cases be mentioned? I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm missing something. Are the issues of legal personality and corporate personhood two completely different things? --Netsettler (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

U.S. section - POV questionable[edit]

The article says Temples in some legal systems have separate legal personality and cites Williams v The Shipping Corporation of India (US District Court, Eastern District Virginia), 10 March 1980, 63 ILR 363 which doesn't include the word "temple." In the Indian legal system, a temple Deity is a juristic person and the property of the temple held in its name. See http://tamilbrahmins.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/do-the-treasures-belong-to-the-temple/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arumugaswami (talkcontribs) 19:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Corporate Aggregate loops[edit]

The hyperlink in this page for Corporate Aggregate is redirected to this page. It would be helpful if that legal term had its own page.ClassicalScholar 21:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talkcontribs)

History[edit]

The history section is missing many details. It would benefit the article if an expert could write more extensively about when and how exactly the legal personality came to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.169.21.62 (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Not always necessairy to sell products[edit]

A legal personality is not always necessairy to sell items. For example, many of the companies supplying shopiing cart systems allow users to sell items, even if they don't have a legal personality themselves. This is possible as they themselves have a legal personality and allow the users to use this legal personality to sell their products.

Mention in article, it's quite important info. 81.242.230.241 (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Split[edit]

At the end of this split there should be three be articles: legal persons = {juristic persons + natural persons}. Only the current lede should stay in Legal person. In the name of clarity! Littledogboy (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that there should be an article for juristic persons. But I can't agree with the proposal completely because the meaning of "legal person" is same as that of "juristic person". Correctly, "persons" (any subjects that have legal personality) = {"legal persons"(= "juristic persons", "artificial persons", or "moral persons") + "natural persons"}. So, this article can be renamed as "Person (Law)" but not "Legal person".--Poohpooh817 (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Poohpooh817, thank you for taking interest in the matter. However, take a look at the first three references in the article, including Oxford Dic. of Law, which all assert that "A legal person is any individual, firm or government agency with the right to enter into binding agreements." Littledogboy (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I see. There seems that "legal persons" has two meanings:persons (entities with legal personalities, including natural persons) and juridical persons. For the latter meaning, please see, for example, Black's Law Dictionary.
So, I am still against the idea to rename this article to "legal person". "Person" is the most popular word for the former meaning so you can find an article for this word in every legal dictionary whereas "legal person" is comparatively rare in such dictionaries (and usually it is explained in the latter meaning.).--Poohpooh817 (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
For examples of the explanation in the latter meaning in online dictionaries, please see legal person in businessdictionary.com, legal person in findlaw.com as well as juridical person and artificial person in Black's Law Dictionary (2nd ed.).--Poohpooh817 (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Poohpooh817. "Person" is usually used.
The "legal person" in the sources pointed out by Littledogboy may be a way to stress "a person in the legal meaning", "a person, in the law topics" (akin to "disambiguating" in Wikipedia ...) . Have those sources--109.53.199.221 (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC) article about "person" too?

Quebec's Charter of Human Right and Freedoms[edit]

In Canada, in the province of Quebec, their "Charter of Human Right and Freedoms" CHAPTER I ARTICLE 1 states the following:

1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom. He also possesses JURIDICAL personality. 1975, c. 6, s. 1; 1982, c. 61, s. 1.

Are we to assume from this Charter Document that Human Beings "possess" a JURIDICAL PERSONALITY (aka an "artificial person")?


http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/C_12/C12_A.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.113.146 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Legal personality and Separate legal entity[edit]

Please clarify distinctions. --109.53.199.221 (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thom Hartmann[edit]

I added a tag to the sentence regarding Thom Hartmann in the Controversies about "corporate personhood" in the United States section. I was not clear how this information is relevant to the topic. After looking at this revision, it looks like the information was added by someone trying to give examples of opposing viewpoints. I have left the sentence for now, since I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, and there may be a valid reason for the information to be included here.

The main reason I tagged it was because it seems like an advertisement to me. Perhaps someone with more knowledge will be able to better connect this fact with the rest of the article or section and create some relevance, but my opinion is that it does not contribute much to the article at this point. — OranL (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)