Talk:Companies law

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles

Can anyone add something me the legal discipline of corporate pyramids in the US, please? Regards, Ermes

There are pages on:

1. Companies law 2. Company law 3. Business organizations 4. Incorporation (business) 5. Corporation 6. Commercial law

...just for a start. Now the main problem is the terminology, which isn't entirely shared between the States on the one hand and England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, S. Africa, India, etc on the other hand. In the latter I think it's right to say that when we talk about "companies law" then that includes partnerships, etc - i.e. unincorporated companies, without separate legal personality and limited liability. Whereas in the States, obviously, corporations law is only about the companies which are "incorporated". Really, there ought to be two main pages, one on companies generally, one on the specific kind of company that everyone knows about, the ltd, the plc, the Inc, the pty ltd. In that list above, it seems to me that 4 and 5 ought to be merged, because they're already the same thing; and then 3 and 1 should cover the same subject matter (i.e. the wider scope of companies law). )2 4 and 5 are dealing with the same thing really, although 2 can focus more on law, while 4 and 5 can bring in all the sociological stuff that seems popular at the moment, criticisms etc). But what I am wondering is maybe this page, which is still rather stubbish (although has good content for the bits it covers) ought to be renamed Companies law, because you can't begin to talk partnerships when you refer to corporations, for instance. The current content then could be broadened into a wider discussion on all companies or moved into the Company law page. Hope that isn't all too complicated to follow! Please leave your thoughts. Wikidea 11:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Partnerships law is completely different from companies law. This page should probably be cut down to refer to the different types of organisation, and factot each one out, OR it should become comprehensive, and fold in all of the other pages. Lawdroid (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, having more of a think, perhaps Corporations law could be a page for the big type, and then companies law, for the whole spectrum of firms? Wikidea 11:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. What is the basis of drawing that distinction, legally? Lawdroid (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps nothing legal, but quite a lot of people use "company" to refer to types of partnership etc (see, eg, Gower and Davies (2008) 4 - if you're in the UK), or the full range of "business associations". When we talk of a "corporation" this is something with separate legal personality, whereas a partnership does not - partners are agents for one another (see Salomon v Salomon and contrast with the Partnership Act 1890 for instance). But it's nice to get a response two years after this posting! Now that I think about it again, this page should probably be renamed business associations, and simply be an outline of each type, with headings linking to each main page, like you say above.

Eh the term "unincorporated company" tends not to have much application outside of specific contexts in my experience, BUT I'm glad we agree on how this should be reorganised. Lawdroid (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might make more sense to have a 'business organizations' page that points to the various forms of organizations.

The Commonwealth and US law pages discussing forms of organizations used for business should be separated: 'companies law (commonwealth)' and 'US corporate law', perhaps. The substantive and terminology differences between US and Commonwealth jurisdictions really make it impractical and confusing to try to discuss details without being explicit about what jurisdiction is being discussed. Conant Webb 12:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, subject to the suggestion that the alternative would be to have two major sections, one for each of those subjects. Lawdroid (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better approach would be to create a page that encompasses all these entities: 'Business law', and from there branch out to its various forms. Currently 'Business law' redirects to commercial law, a stub. 'Business law' is a term that describes the breadth of the subject and is non-specific as to country of origin. Sctechlaw (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to companies law, because this page is talking about all company forms, not only those who are incorporated (i.e. separte legal personality, usually with limited liability of members). I also want to suggest that this have the page "business organisations" merged in. There is no need to have two pages covering the same thing, and both need a legal perspective and the more general discussion. Wikidea 10:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business organizations redirects to here. However, I think we need a parent article which discusses businesses in the abstract sense, and is therefore able to step outside of using restrictive legal terminology (corporation, company, partnership) which mean different things in different areas. Business organization seems like the best fit for that. It could then have sections on terminology and law. There are other factors affecting businesses aside from law: strategy, management, financing, ect.

Note that business association seems like it would be similar, but it actually has an article which indicates its main use: a body representing the interests of business organizations. II | (t - c) 22:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Company law": 1) The Wikipedia is supposed to be for non-lawyers, too, which implies that "company" should be taken in the common language meaning of any organization that's in business. (Isn't that a principle of contract law?) Similarly, "business organizations" implies an article far broader than the legal categories. (That title sounds like the article should cover, e.g. functional versus matrix versus product line organization.) 2) Neither "company" nor "business" should be the formal title of a parent article that lays out the genus and species for all entities, since neither "companies" nor "business" is sufficiently inclusive. How about "Legal entities", which would encompass not only businesses and companies (in all their legal forms), but also not-for-profit corporations (e.g. private universities), Special Purpose Vehicles (used for off-balance sheet financial arrangements), and quangos -- just to name a few legal entities that aren't really businesses or companies in the normal senses of the words. CambridgeOrbital (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Companies law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070228002805/http://www.state.de.us/corp/aboutagency.shtml to http://www.state.de.us/corp/aboutagency.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]