4 ms·
> However, judges already accept corps having legal entity status To be fair, that isn't a trick. That's been the established legal norm since 1886. Corporat
by bmelton 9y ago
> However, judges already accept corps having legal entity status
To be fair, that isn't a trick. That's been the established legal norm since 1886. Corporations are people for a variety of reasons, including (as Gargoyle mentions) because they're just collections of people, but also because without at least some forms of personhood, we wouldn't be able to sue corporations who deliberately or negligently violate the law and harm their customers (or neighbors, et al.)
Because of personhood, a corporation has _liability_, beyond just the usual chicanery.
- ergothus 9y ago> Because of personhood, a corporation has _liability_, beyond just the usual chicanery. I wasn't denying that a self-owned corporation could be held liable, I was arguing that we can't count on a judge tossing out the concept of a self-owned corporation. (It's possible, maybe even probable, though I doubt it, but not basically guaranteed).
- bmelton 9y agoUnderstood. My point wasn't that a self-owned corporation would have liability, I was arguing that corporate personhood isn't a good example of legal trickery, since not only is that opinion pretty exclusive to non-law people, but it's totally been that way for the entire lives of every sitting judge.