EQUITY AND THE DOCTRINES OF BUSINESS LAW

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 582

This article is written by Nikita Paul of 2^nd Semester of Adamas University of School of Law and Justice, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT:-

The marriage between business activity and equity can be delicate. For an organisation to be sustainable, a business must be able to generate a substantial profit margin from its commercial activity. The parties to the organisation must have a steady and obvious division of power. Additionally, the company needs to be flexible enough to adjust to changing business conditions. Both assurance and flexibility are required. Equitable theories and remedies may hinder any or all of these things. However, as this article demonstrates, the judge-made equity system has significantly influenced the design and functioning of business associations, particularly limited liability firms and “common law” partnerships. Equity can hinder corporate activity when used incorrectly, just like any regulation does when used incorrectly.

KEYWORDS:-

Equity, business associations, corporations, companies, partnerships, trusts

INTRODUCTION:-

The intersection of equity and commercial action can be delicate. For an organisation to be sustainable, a business must be able to generate a substantial profit margin from its commercial activity. The distribution of power among people involved in a business organisation must also be consistent and obvious if it is to function successfully. Additionally, in order for business associations to succeed in situations where competitors’ actions and customer preferences may change rapidly, decisions made about how the business should proceed must be able to be followed or disregarded in daily operations.

Both assurance and flexibility are required. Equity is an element of common law systems, which enable the formation of business associations and the conduct of successful commercial activity in ways that are economically viable. Numerous conclusions are possible from this. The prevalence of business associations and the scope of their operations in common law jurisdictions provide evidence for the conclusion that the administration of equity by those jurisdictions’ courts is not inimical to the needs of business organisations and their operations. Specific equitable principles, or their improper application, may limit business requirements, but so may parliamentary legislation, regulatory activities, and particular laws and judgements of the judge-made common law. Business is not as a result hampered by the equity system that was acquired from the English Court of Chancery. This chapter will concentrate on business associations, especially unincorporated partnerships and companies incorporated through registration, with the goal of identifying doctrines that have helped and still help equity to support the creation of these business structures and their management. It may be instructive to think of the doctrines relevant to business associations in terms also familiar in areas of law discussed in other chapters of this volume because some of the equitable doctrines and attitudes to be discussed have counterparts in the laws applicable to other types of organisations — most obviously express trusts and statutory bodies. As a result, the chapter will go on to discuss the application of equitable theories to business organisations’ constitutional frameworks and the management of their executive branches.

CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:-

A business alliance resembles a nation state in several ways. Both governments follow “rather distinct patterns. The patterns normally consist of a collection of individuals who fall under and are qualified to benefit from the peculiar laws of the association or state. According to the law, or according to political theory, those people are considered as giving power and authority to a specific group of people inside the association or state since they are members of it. The executive body that accepts these abilities and the body that donates them may differ from one another in significant or small ways. The difference between direct democracy and partnerships is minimal compared to companies and representative democracies. These characteristics have significantly changed how equitable principles and remedies are used in business alliances. In order to accommodate alternative forms of government and, in fact, to make them possible, equitable principles have been modified. There are illustrations incorporated throughout this chapter.

The Court of Chancery’s position in ‘legal’ equity has also been affected by the fact that there are some structural differences between business associations and a nation state like the United Kingdom. Contrary to modern trading organisations, businesses formed under a special Act of Parliament frequently had access to a visitor who served as something resembling a judicial outlet for resolving disputes. While dictatorial jurisdiction is largely limited to resolving disputes inquisitorially by maintaining the corporation to the wishes of its founder, visitation does not closely correspond with a fully elaborated concept of adjudication as understood in common law countries, despite traditional conceptions of the judicial function including some proceedings of an inquisitorial rather than adversarial character. In fact, visitation is intended to provide an alternative to court jurisdiction.

The positions of business organisations and nation states are identical on a detailed level of doctrines and norms.

Business associations could no longer be seen to engage in these ways after the Bubble engage made it illegal to act or pretend to act as a corporate entity, raise transferable stock, transfer that stock, and other similar actions without the consent of Parliament or the Crown9. This had an impact on business organisation legislation. Unlike statutory and chartered corporations, an unincorporated company that needed to avoid the Bubble Act “was definitely not “the creation of the state”,” hence the state was less accessible to such a unit. A body of office law and practise developed by business corporations’ and their counsel laid the groundwork for the contemporary law of business organisations. While the aforementioned structural or constitutional commonalities remain aspects of equity’s involvement in business organisations, an explanation of this involvement must also take into consideration how business associations differ from other institutions like the nation state.

PRIVATE LAWS AND THE ASSOCIATION:-

The formation of a “private law” of the business organisation is the first area where equity has been heavily involved. Similarities and variances may be noticed in this area. Both the business and the partnership establish a “private law” for people who are actively involved in each body, much like (for instance) the English legal system. The same is often accurate for trusts as well as statutory corporations and corporations created by charter. This idea was referred to when Lord Cross of Chelsea discussed “the common law of the company.” The company’s memorandum and articles contained information on its common law. The equivalent “common laws” for either partnerships or trusts can be found in the Such a private or municipal law’s creation is not a particularly equitable function. A law of this kind may be achieved without equity, as in cases where a statutory corporation is created, however equity may aid in its realisation. Any regulations that establish obligations and liabilities that bind an association’s members and to which individuals who do not participate in the association can safely stay ignorant may achieve this. A unit trust is “Janus-like,” according to a court that recently stated this, having both a legal and an equitable face as well as a public and a private face.

Similar to how a firm or partnership’s members may be bound by one set of “laws” that control the organization’s internal operations.

THE STABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE:-

The courts’ refusal to permit the parties’ choice to establish a certain type of business association for the operation of their firm to be overruled by other legal principles provides stability to the constitution of business associations. Compared to the common law, equity includes a wider variety of doctrines and remedies that, if improperly used, could be used to undermine the chosen structure. The use of equitable coercive relief and the concepts of equitable fraud and constructive trusts could have a particularly disruptive impact. Other equitable doctrines may also apply. In one instance, attempting to use the equitable notion of contribution was compared to making a request for idiosyncratic justice. The complainant wanted to hold his putative joint-venture partner or partner accountable for One of the many ways that equity facilitates administration is by preventing the application of generally stated principles of equity, such as the law of trusts, contribution principles, and others, in situations where a careful examination of the facts reveals that those principles are not supported by the facts. This is one of the many ways that equity facilitates administration. When equity withholds its principles and relief because the reasons for doing so cannot be located in the case’s facts, this helps business associations function. The remark that there is no equity to amend company articles serves as another illustration. An instrument whose provisions do not contain the law may be ordered to be corrected due to a mistake.

WINDING UP:-

Equity is willing to deconstruct corporate relationships through winding up, but it is unwilling to interfere with their formation. Under the Partnership Act of 1890 and in legislative enactments “developed… from the general principles of the law of partnership” for application to businesses, equity came to play a significant role in the dissolution of commercial organisations, a practise that continues virtually unchanged today. The general rules of partnership law recognised that the partners may dissolve the partnership by themselves, either with their consent or in accordance with a provision of the partnership agreement. To give effect to such an agreement or arrangement, particularly by the keeping of accounts, equitable relief will arise. In the absence of such an agreement or condition, an equity court may order a divorce. Equitable theories cover further issues pertaining to how business associations are constituted. Examples include keeping a record of a company’s members, transferring shares between partners or company members, forfeiting shares, and recognising the difference between capital and business. These issues will be covered in the next section since they frequently result from the exercise of executive authority by board members of the company or partners acting in an executive capacity.

ADMINISTRATION:-

Executive powers held by directors or partners are used to manage the business affairs of a corporation or partnership. In order to analyse and, when appropriate, take commercial risks for the benefit of the business, it will frequently be necessary to have some degree of broad power. Power carries with it the chance of abuse, so the everyday management of corporate matters carries with it the risk of bad management. Equity imposes limitations on the authority of fiduciaries, such as directors and partners, in ways that are now being thought about. As will be seen, these are additional ways that equitable doctrines supplement the already considered techniques of managing executive power in commercial groups.

JOINT STOCK:-

Similar to how a partnership’s partners control its assets, a company’s directors are in charge of it. In many ways, a company’s or a partnership’s assets are viewed as a fund. The concept of a fund as applied to corporations and partnerships in common law systems rests on factors that in turn depend on equitable principles and on innovations made in equity courts that were occasionally thereafter adopted by common law courts. As a result, equity theories are used to manage a company’s and a partnership’s assets. It also relies on a history of fair adjudication, which has made it easier to execute policies with administrative aspects that were consciously accepted. The relevant parties’ intention to create an asset pool that is separate from their own assets and intended to have a semi-autonomous status is one of the components of the fund notion as applied to corporations and partnerships in common law systems. For instance, the parties may specifically wish for their obligations to be capped to the amount of their aggregated share. This initial component of the fund concept is apparent in the joint stock in business associations law. Each participant traded on his or her own account and held his or her own stock in the regulated trading corporations of the 16 and seventeenth centuries. The stock had many stocks. It was different from the joint stock of the corporation, from which no participant had a stake.

CAPITAL VS. BUSINESS:-

The concept of a joint stock and the concept of a fund, among other things, allow all the assets of a company, partnership, or trust to be identified. The assets that are identified as part of the joint stock or fund are the assets that must be administered in accordance with the specific company, partnership, or trust’s “private law.” However, directors and partners may be required to discern between various fund components as part of their executive tasks. The majority of directors are in charge of running the business profitably. According to general partnership law, each member is in charge of running the partnership profitably. These executives will have to discern between capital and business in order to determine distributable Later, it is claimed that the courts were “forced” to stop treating the shares of land-holding companies’ shareholders as both “fractions of real estate” and “rights in the business conducted on that land”; instead, the courts were compelled to treat shares as only “personal property,” even when the company owned land. The purposive interpretation of the Statute of Frauds that had originated in equity, which harboured a “bias… against a too literal construction of the statute,” was vindicated by this change, which occurred both at law (in questions of inheritance) and in equity (in questions of the administration of deceased estates).

STATUS AS SHAREHOLDER:-

A proper record of who has a stake in the company is necessary for the commercial activities of a business association. The necessity for an accurate record is served by equity doctrines. Such records, which include shareholder registrations for firms, partnership agreements, and other types of records, may not be accurate due to a variety of factors. The doctrines of equity that satisfy the need for a proper record are also diverse as a result of this variation. There may be allegations of fraud, share forfeiture, or assignment as grounds for requests to have the record changed through equitable remedies. Each of such circumstances as well as the applicability of the equitable notion of rectification will be taken into account.

EQUITABLE CLAIMS TO SHARES:-

It is possible for a share to be reportedly transferred twice, once to one transferee and once to another. The two transferees may then compete for precedence. When a transferee purchases a share that is held on an express trust or is covered by a constructive trust, they may also rely on the priority rules. It is conceivable that equitable priority principles may be used to determine who should be listed as the owner of the pertinent interest in a specific company. The transaction that the winning claimant’s claim is made under would be advanced by the equitable priority rules. However, equity permits these regulations to be superseded (as they frequently are) by suitable declarations of intention in a company’s articles of organisation or constitution; the regulations in this case are equity-based.

DEBT FINANCING:-

A share may allegedly be transferred twice, once to one transferee and once to another. The two transferees can then fight it out for priority. A transferee may also depend on the priority rules when buying a share that is held on an express trust or is protected by a constructive trust. It is possible that the owner of the relevant stake in a particular company should be determined using equitable priority rules. The equitable priority rules would give the transaction that the winning claimant’s claim is made under priority. However, equity permits sufficient statements of intention in a company’s articles of incorporation or constitution to trump these rules (as they commonly do).

CONCLUSION:-

After the Bubble Act was passed, recourse to all courts, including the Chancery, was foregone at a period when the fundamental components of these bodies of law were being established. Even then, the jurisprudence of the courts of equity led to important changes. Business associations were given a structure using the “equitable trust”. The framework made it possible to achieve the fundamental aspects of incorporation without doing so. These characteristics are still present in modern corporate associations. It was possible to establish “private law” to regulate the association’s members. Outsiders were neither entitled to nor subject to this law of the company or partnership, which was separate from the general laws of England. When it comes to joint Some assistance was provided in various ways, particularly by choosing not to apply equitable theories that, if rigidly enforced, would cause intolerably disruptive behaviour. One such instance is the inappropriateness of using the equitable remedy of rectification to amend the provisions of a company’s articles of association.

In common law systems, any source of law has the potential to be misused or carelessly expanded in order to obstruct legal commercial activities. Even if it will never actually happen, such a hindrance is not very common. Particularly, it rarely happens when a judge applies equity concepts and principles. The examples in this chapter do, in fact, corroborate the assertion that theories of equity have significantly influenced modern legislation on commercial relationships through.

REFERENCES:-