Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Under joint and several liability or (in the U.S.) all sums, a plaintiff (claimant) is entitled to claim an obligation incurred by any of the promisors from all of them jointly and also from each of them individually. Thus the plaintiff has more than one cause of action: if she pursues one promisor and he fails to pay the sum due, her action is ...
The owners are jointly and severally liable for any legal actions and debts the company may face, unless otherwise provided by law or in the agreement. It is a partnership in which partners share equally in both responsibility and liability.
The Partnership Act 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 39) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which governs the rights and duties of people or corporate entities conducting business in partnership. A partnership is defined in the act as 'the relation which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit.' [1]
A common example of solidary obligations for the obligees is a joint bank account; when two or more names are on an account, they are obligees of the bank's obligation to make funds available on demand. Each obligee would have the right to withdraw the whole amount in the bank account.
A close equivalent to limited liability partnerships under Polish law is the spółka partnerska, where all partners are jointly and severally liable for the partnership's debts apart from those arising from another partner's misconduct or negligence. This partnership type is only addressed to representatives of some "high risk" occupations ...
In the United Kingdom, limited partnerships are governed by the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 and, on matters on which that Act is silent, also by the Partnership Act 1890. The UK Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (now the Department for Business and Trade ) consulted in 2008 on proposals to modify and merge the two Acts ...
The employers were joint and severally liable against the plaintiff (though amongst themselves they could sue one another for different contributions). It was wrong to deny the claimants any remedy at all. Therefore, the appropriate test of causation is whether the employers had materially increased the risk of harm to the claimants.
The distinction to be made is whether they have to act jointly and severally (collegiately), jointly but individually (solidarily), or solidarily at least in some given case. The delegate is to follow exactly his instructions, but is empowered to do all that is necessary to execute them. If he exceed his power, his act is null. [2]