Talk:Limited liability/Archives/2011

Anglo-saxon focus

This seems to be almost entirely about the UK, with a bit of US and Commonwealth thrown in. The concept of limited liability is largely universal now, and indeed the LLC article mentions influences other than the British. Bhudson 19:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the 'history' bit, which was very much a British thing, coming out of the Industrial Revolution. The LLC article is about a particular US limited liability vehicle, and merely mentions the existence (or not) of similar vehicles in a couple of other countries. It doesn't touch on history or 'influences' whatsoever. Mauls 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unlimited Liability

This page links to 'unlimited liability', which redirects back to 'Limited Liability'. Either the link to unlimited liability should be removed, or it should go to a different page. 128.200.33.248 16:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Limited Liability Partnerships

I asked for citation on how people in LLPs have limited liability. From what I was taught in my Business Law class, an LLP only prevents a partner from being liable for the tort debts of his/her other partners. This was created to encourage businessmen to be careful, because if they get sued for a business-related tort (such as a dentist screwing up a root canal), they are still liable for the lawsuit, whereas in an LLC, that's not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a general reference that describes both LLPs and Limited Partners, although not in detail. See also LLP which may explain the confusion; it seems that LLP means something different in US and UK usage. JulesH (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

LLC Liability

If a sole owner of a LLC is deliquient on personal credit card debt, not related to the LLC, could a judgement be made where the credit card company or it's assigns take money out of the LLC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.22 (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Historical Roots

Just looking at the focus on the Anglo Saxon tradition mentioned before. I am currently doing a project involving the Roman legal idea of "peculium", or slave property. It is the laws which govern the slave's ownership of property in the Roman Republic. The idea of limited liability comes up here. When slaves acted, they were not acting as the master's agent. The slave became a party to a contract with the third party in the transaction. Because slaves lacked legal standing in court, the law allowed the business to bring an action against the slave's master instead. The action was brought through "actio de peculio". This allowed the enforcement of a slave's debts against the master up to the amount of the "peculium". The master was protected by a manner of limited liability this way. I am not sure how they came about this line of reasoning, but its worth looking into to expand the historical section of the page. This is my first wikipedia discussion ever, so no idea what I am doing!

Source: Richard Gamauf "Slaves doing business: the Role of Roman law in the economy of a Roman household" (European Review of History - Vol. 16, No. 3, June 2009)

142.207.120.118 (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Brian

Impact of unlimited liability

The article says "There is evidence that shares in public companies would be at a disadvantage if liability were unlimited[13] and the experience of partly-paid shares in the nineteenth century (supra) seems to confirm this.[17] A single counter point[citation needed], limited to a narrow span of time and a single company in a growth economy, existed in the 1950s where there was a healthy market in unlimited liability American Express shares." However, there is at least one other example, the City of Glasgow Bank (it failed in the end but had a very good run), and I would be very surprised if there were not dozens from the nineteenth century. Deipnosophista (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-saxon focus

This seems to be almost entirely about the UK, with a bit of US and Commonwealth thrown in. The concept of limited liability is largely universal now, and indeed the LLC article mentions influences other than the British. Bhudson 19:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the 'history' bit, which was very much a British thing, coming out of the Industrial Revolution. The LLC article is about a particular US limited liability vehicle, and merely mentions the existence (or not) of similar vehicles in a couple of other countries. It doesn't touch on history or 'influences' whatsoever. Mauls 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unlimited Liability

This page links to 'unlimited liability', which redirects back to 'Limited Liability'. Either the link to unlimited liability should be removed, or it should go to a different page. 128.200.33.248 16:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Limited Liability Partnerships

I asked for citation on how people in LLPs have limited liability. From what I was taught in my Business Law class, an LLP only prevents a partner from being liable for the tort debts of his/her other partners. This was created to encourage businessmen to be careful, because if they get sued for a business-related tort (such as a dentist screwing up a root canal), they are still liable for the lawsuit, whereas in an LLC, that's not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a general reference that describes both LLPs and Limited Partners, although not in detail. See also LLP which may explain the confusion; it seems that LLP means something different in US and UK usage. JulesH (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

LLC Liability

If a sole owner of a LLC is deliquient on personal credit card debt, not related to the LLC, could a judgement be made where the credit card company or it's assigns take money out of the LLC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.22 (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Historical Roots

Just looking at the focus on the Anglo Saxon tradition mentioned before. I am currently doing a project involving the Roman legal idea of "peculium", or slave property. It is the laws which govern the slave's ownership of property in the Roman Republic. The idea of limited liability comes up here. When slaves acted, they were not acting as the master's agent. The slave became a party to a contract with the third party in the transaction. Because slaves lacked legal standing in court, the law allowed the business to bring an action against the slave's master instead. The action was brought through "actio de peculio". This allowed the enforcement of a slave's debts against the master up to the amount of the "peculium". The master was protected by a manner of limited liability this way. I am not sure how they came about this line of reasoning, but its worth looking into to expand the historical section of the page. This is my first wikipedia discussion ever, so no idea what I am doing!

Source: Richard Gamauf "Slaves doing business: the Role of Roman law in the economy of a Roman household" (European Review of History - Vol. 16, No. 3, June 2009)

142.207.120.118 (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Brian

Impact of unlimited liability

The article says "There is evidence that shares in public companies would be at a disadvantage if liability were unlimited[13] and the experience of partly-paid shares in the nineteenth century (supra) seems to confirm this.[17] A single counter point[citation needed], limited to a narrow span of time and a single company in a growth economy, existed in the 1950s where there was a healthy market in unlimited liability American Express shares." However, there is at least one other example, the City of Glasgow Bank (it failed in the end but had a very good run), and I would be very surprised if there were not dozens from the nineteenth century. Deipnosophista (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)