The correct answer would be, Piercing the Corporate Veil.
The court may disregard the corporate structure and impose personal liability on the shareholders treating them like partners. This is called as Piercing the Corporate Veil.
Explanation:
A corporation is a form of business in which there are officers called as the board of directors, who run the business as a separate legal entity.
There are shareholders in the corporation who have their shares or stakes in the company.
When a court finds that the shareholders of a corporation are using corporate structure as a shield from liability when acting purely for personal purposes, then in this situation, the court holds the shareholders and directors, personally liable for their actions and debts. This is called as Piercing the Corporate Veil.
Learn more about Piercing the Corporate Veil at:
brainly.com/question/13800014
#LearnWithBrainly
Asia is equivalent to a population of 56.76%
Answer:
a. internal locus of control; external locus of control
Explanation:
Those are personality traits that are defined by the individual's beliefs according to the responsibility about his own actions, in the first case <em>"Internal locus of control" </em>supposes a high level of personal independence and a mayor achievement abilities, and the second <em>"External locus of control"</em> is the opposite, in this order of ideas, we would expect Hal not apply to that school because he knows that there are few possibilities to get in, may be for economical reasons or his personal preparation is not enough to the school standards, and in the another side, his desires to get in can be the best motivation to apply without take into account his real possibilities according to his economic situation or his knowledge capacities.
Answer:
Please tell me what all answers on the test were please or just this
Explanation:
Answer:
In the understanding of this court case, where the plaintiff (L.M.) filed a lawsuit against Pacheco on sexual abuse, the court ruled that the perpetration of the abhorrent act committed did not have to do with Pacheco´s ´´scope of employment´´ as the act happened outside the boundaries of the church and not within his working hours. However, if the plaintiff were to argue that in fact this conduct happened within the scope of employment, she would have to explain and convince that Pacheco was indeed responsible as it is a Pastor's duty and responsibility to guide and counsel at all hours, and not just limited to his church´s hours. A pastor is a figure of responsibility as a visible head for a community, not to mention that in some churches, a pastor is also a legal representative.
Employers should be held liable for the acts of their employees whenever there is a failure to supervise employees or some kind of misdemeanor is perpetrated within the employer´s work facilities or influential premises. These points of view however, are not stated by a lawyer/judicially, these are my personal observations after having researched on the case.
