{"title":"是时候消灭汉普郡的土地了吗","authors":"A. Alcock","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V26I0.928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the early development of English Company Law it was doubted whether a company could be deemed to have the necessary “malice or motive” for most criminal and many tortious liabilities. This view was rejected by the Privy Council in Citizens’ Life Assurance Co Ltd v Brown, which led to the concept of a company having attributed to it personally (as against vicariously) the thoughts and actions of its “directing mind and will”. This was famously explained in a further House of Lords decision, Lennard’s Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"367 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"IS IT TIME TO KILL OFF HAMPSHIRE LAND\",\"authors\":\"A. Alcock\",\"doi\":\"10.5750/DLJ.V26I0.928\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the early development of English Company Law it was doubted whether a company could be deemed to have the necessary “malice or motive” for most criminal and many tortious liabilities. This view was rejected by the Privy Council in Citizens’ Life Assurance Co Ltd v Brown, which led to the concept of a company having attributed to it personally (as against vicariously) the thoughts and actions of its “directing mind and will”. This was famously explained in a further House of Lords decision, Lennard’s Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd.\",\"PeriodicalId\":382436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Denning Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"367 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Denning Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V26I0.928\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Denning Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V26I0.928","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
In the early development of English Company Law it was doubted whether a company could be deemed to have the necessary “malice or motive” for most criminal and many tortious liabilities. This view was rejected by the Privy Council in Citizens’ Life Assurance Co Ltd v Brown, which led to the concept of a company having attributed to it personally (as against vicariously) the thoughts and actions of its “directing mind and will”. This was famously explained in a further House of Lords decision, Lennard’s Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
