Impact of Personality and Company Culture - MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Impact of Personality and Company Culture. Answer: Introduction: A company employee can also be director or a shareholder of the company. He will have the right to be paid when the services will be carried out of the company. A company is therefore considered to be a separate legal entity with its independent existence from the members and shareholders. The property is owned by the company and has its own rights. The property of the company is not the property of the employees, shareholders or directors of the company as was observed in the case of Solomon v Solomon. Directors, members or shareholders can be negligent with their respective duties. The usual duties of directors and the executive directors will be bound by the terms of the employment contract. The company has innumerable legal duties. The duties are included under the Companies Act. However, the directors or the shareholders can be negligent while carrying out their duties. The concept of negligence is treated under the Law of Torts. A legal wrong that is usually suffered by someone due to the activities of another person is treated to be a tort of negligence. Torts is a civil wrong that can be caused by any individual. If a director or shareholder becomes negligent during his work either the company or they themselves will be liable for the acts. Directors, shareholders, officers and the company itself are subjected to a few specific liabilities. Liability is also limited to a certain level to make sure that there is a possibility of carrying on the business that had no constant legal suit. It was assumed previously that a corporation itself had a low set of liabilities. Those liabilities were only considered to be civil in nature. As per the Company Act, it can be stated that the directors, employees and officers have always held companies liable for the obligations and contracts that are entered into on their behalf (Brickey and Taub 2017). Netheremere Ltd v Taverna Gardiner held that outworkers could be considered to be employees if they are exercising the same work as the ones in the workplace. This is a concept of vicarious liability. When a contract is entered into prior to the actual moment of an incorporation of company, it will be the liability of the company (Lacoste 2016). These pre-incorporation of contracts when entered into by the promoters of the company, it becomes the companys obligation itself when they are either adopted by the corporation or if the company agrees with the merits of the contract. As far as torts is concerned, usually a company has a degree of liability for the torts that have been dedicated by the employees or the directors of the company during the course of the employment (Lacoste 2016). It also depends on the effect and nature of the tort. The basic and common rule of the liability of the company related to torts is that it ignores the liability for the intentional torts on the parts where the directors or the employees are involved. However, this may be held liable for unintentional torts that are committed by the employees (Sadgrove 2016). Therefore, if the tort that is intentional and the corporate directors anticipated and if the company accepts the merits of the commission then the company will held liable even if the tort was committed intentionally by an employee as observed in Greenfield v. Colonial Stores Inc. A company can be liable to its own directors or shareholders if the case is a matter of negligence. However, when a breach is caused, there are consequences faced by the shareholders and the c ompany. Remedies are available for the breach of the duties in the company (Sadgrove 2016). A breach also falls under the ground for termination of an executive directors service contract. When the shareholders have been negligent in their work, the corporation as well as the shareholders will be liable for the negligent activity (Harding and Kohl 2016). The liability to the shareholders is considered to be more limited compared to the officers and directors. The shareholders themselves elect their managers to act as their agents for protecting their investment. Fiduciary duty is not owed to the shareholders or the corporation. This is due to the scenario that shareholders have less influence in the decision making process of the corporation. Therefore, in this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that shareholders are completely immune from liability (Webb, Tarun and Molo 2016). Therefore, if a director or shareholder is negligent at work, they will be liable for their own acti vities. In certain cases, a company can be liable to its own shareholders or directors under the law of torts. The directors, officers and employees of a corporation can be held liable criminally if any kind of criminal acts are committed. If the acts are committed personally despite, whether they were acting in furtherance of the interests of the corporation, the officers and directors will be held liable (Bainbridge 2015). Corporations or companies are considered to be separate legal entities. They are not individuals but in the eye of law, corporations are treated as a person for a few specific purposes. For instance, if the agents of the company have committed a criminal act during their course of duty, they will held responsible and liable for each elements of the crime and it commits the crime to obtain profits of the company compared to the profits gained by the individuals (Brickey and Taub 2017). The corporation itself can be found guilty of the crime. The agents of the company have committed the essentials of crime that are associated with the corporation as the company will be char ged to be guilty of the crime. If the number of individuals involved is more than two then the prosecution should provide evidence that an agent of the company must have been guilty of the crime as it was committed knowingly. Small companies do not face such complicated situations (Pearce 2016). However, companies are known as legal persons who have the power of getting sued and suing are capable of committing crimes. According to the respondent superior, a corporation is generally held liable criminally for carrying out illegal activities of the directors, agents and employees. To hold a company for these actions, the government should be determining actions of the corporate agents. Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital discussed the elements of negligence appearing in companies. Either the employees or the directors are generally held liable for being negligent. It should be proved within the scope of the duties and for the benefit of the corporation (West and Gail 2015). If the owner of the corporation loots money from his or her own business then it will be beneficial from the crime but generally the company does not. The owner will be guilty of the crime and not the company (Wan, 2016). For instance, if the manager of that particular company has his or her employees hazardous waste dumped illegally then the company will be benefitted from the crime committed (Brickey and Taub 2017). As observed in the case of Limpus v London General Omnibus Co. when the employer but if has restricted the conduct of the employee the act itself is authorized then the employer will be held liable. The money can be saved by disposing and therefore the company will be guilty even if the owners or the shareholders were clueless about the manager committing the crime. If the agents of a company commit a crime on his behalf, the company can be held liable and guilty if it is proved that the owners were not associated with it. There are cases and situations in a company when an employees unauthorized criminal actions represent the potential of the companys criminal charges (Bussmann 2015). However, the company can protect itself from getting charged of actively cooperation with the government. If a manager of the company identifies a group of persons who has been engaged with the fraudulent orders and gets them fired then the company will be held guilty of fraud. For avoiding such a situation, it is the duty of the company to inform the enforcement of law related to the criminal acts of the salespeople (Bainbridge 2015). When a corporate plea agreement is positioned, it should include the specific provisions that can identify the nature of the crime and makes sure that the principles of punishment and rehabilitation that are met. As per law, when a corporation is held liable, the individuals engaged with the company will also be held liable. The officers and the board of directors will always be held liable criminally as well. A person is generally held liable criminally for the illegal act of another employee under the compliance liability theory. If a person encourages or instructs another employee to commit or associate in a criminal conduct, they will be held liable for the criminal act of the employees. Therefore, a company who is held liable criminally for the criminal conduct of its employees, shall suffer criminally and financially (Webb, Tarun and Molo 2016). The penalties imposed on the company including the directors and officers are civil penalties, loss of government contracts, shareholder suits and revocation of corporate charter by the authorities of the state. These are the factors that the court will take into account as to whether the company or the individuals associated with the company will be guilty. References: Bainbridge, S.M., 2015. 11. Preserving director primacy by managing shareholder interventions.Research Handbook on Shareholder Power, p.231. Brickey, K.F. and Taub, J., 2017.Corporate and white collar crime: cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law Business. Bussmann, K.D., 2015. The impact of personality and company culture on company anti-corruption programmes.The Routledge handbook of white-collar and corporate crime in Europe, pp.435-452. Harding, C. and Kohl, U., 2016.Human rights in the market place: the exploitation of rights protection by economic actors. Routledge. Hillary, R. ed., 2017.Small and medium-sized enterprises and the environment: business imperatives. Routledge. Lacoste, S., 2016. Sustainable value co-creation in business networks.Industrial Marketing Management,52, pp.151-162. Pearce, R., 2016. Business management, environmental health and the EHP/business interface.Clay's Handbook of Environmental Health, p.252. Sadgrove, K., 2016.The complete guide to business risk management. Routledge. Wan, W.Y., 2016. The illegality defence in corporate law claims against directors and officers.Hong Kong Law Journal,46(1), p.225. Webb, D.K., Tarun, R.W. and Molo, S.F., 2016.Corporate Internal Investigations. Law Journal Press. West, G.D. and Gail, D.B., 2015. Tort Law's Continued Intrusion Into the MA AgreementWhat to Do About It, If Anything. Yeager, P., 2017.Corporate Crime. Routledge.