corporate-law mens-rea
How is a corporate person, a person?
<p>Law with respect to the human person, rests on intention, or a neglect of intention.</p>

<p>A corporate person, has no access to intention - it is only human persons, behind the veil of the corporate person, that either intentionally or negligently push the corporate person to action, or negligence.</p>

<p>A bit 'Talented Mr Ripley', but is a human person who holds power, and directs the corporate person's 'decisions' - not unlike a human carer for some other human who lacks some necessary capacity to execute decisions? And if that carer, through their intention or negligence, inspires the cared for human to act in some way against the law - is it not always the carer that is responsible?</p>

<p>With respect to the human carer and cared for individual - there is no veil, just the consideration of both individual's intention, or lack thereof. For the corporation, sometimes the 'veil is lifted', but what is a, or any, beneficial purpose of this veil of intention for the corporate person? Is it not a starting point of obfuscation, and at the extreme - honest consideration of human mens-rea? </p>

<p>The main topic you have spoken of is intention of a corporation. You question the ability of organisations to have intent. A corporation can be fully responsible for negligent behaviour when multiple employees knowingly acted against the interest of their customers/clients because Corporations are separate legal entities meaning they are kept separate from their owner/s liability wise. </p>

<p>Yes the actions of many employees give rise to business operations and hence, the employees act on behalf of their organisation as one. Whilst ceos can be sued individually for bad company direction, it often comes down to the type of claim and who by.</p>

<p>As for other issues faced by corporations as legal persons.
In private law there have been cases brought forward about a companies right to privacy as a legal person, this has not been upheld in Australia where the media have a right to post and companies must be transparent in their actions. The ability for a corporation to be fully viewed as a legal person is in question here.</p>

<p>In another issue, land can be declared a legal person. It cannot be said it has intention and it is unlikely it would be sued by anyone, however, the governing authority responsible for the land can take action on behalf of the land to protect ‘its interests’ - interests being an objective point of view as to obligations of the governing body rather than a subjective point of view from the actual land itself.</p>

<p>In short, yes corporations have leaders and governing owners that put forth actions, but they are a legal person in the sense that they act as one body rather than many individuals with different subjective intentions and views. It makes it easier to claim legal issues this way. For example the intention of Bob as marketing chief would be more subjective and harder to determine than the intention of the actions of the whole company in a misleading advertising claim. Also Bob may not have enough money to be worth going to court to attempt to claim compensation.</p>
