Concept of Natural Legal Personality in English Law

Concept of Natural Legal disposition in English impartialityDiscuss the drawing examples from your studies, bibliography.Natural law is the law that exists independently of the plus law of a given political order, society or nation state. As a genre, inborn law is the law of nature that is the theory that some things atomic number 18 as they atomic number 18 because they are. The central antecedent of the theory us that on that point are rude(a) rights that are given to each human cosmos by God.1Legal constitution has been defined to express the ability of self to remove himself from all particularities much(prenominal)(prenominal) as family, personal history, social and cultural background and to become abstract and indeterminate. Legal recognition is a type of recognition based on the minimum commonality of people and non on the differences and single(a) characteristics which make them unique individuals.2 A statutory person is a bearer of subjective right.3 Legal p ersonality can either be instinctive or jural.Natural sound personality is therefore the legal status allocated to every human being by the mere fact of their existence by God. So, every body has Natural Legal Personality regardless of where they are from and under what political regime they live. Having verbalise that, It is doubtful that this is highly relevant in England today. This essay focuses on the image and illustrations of its applicability and limitations.The concept of rude(a) legal personality is hardly ever mentioned these days. This is possibly because there are not many rights that are attributable to rude(a) legal persons. Even in the realm of Public International Law where there are laws that are attributable to persons by the mere fact that they are human by representation of human right provisions, enforceability for instance, is almost impossible in the absence of the state.In the realm of private law, where legal personality becomes more relevant, an indi viduals autonomy exists only in a very restrict and figurative sense. A person cannot grant rights to himself because rights of one person inevitable presupposes obligations on another and such a legal connection can only be made in conformity with an verifiable legal system by way of a consonant expression of will by the two parties. Even this legal connection only exists in so far as the contract is set up by the objective law as a law-creating material fact. So, in private law, there is no complete autonomy.4 The mere use of the cry legal seems to suggest the lack of such autonomy.Practical applications of the concept of Legal Personality exist. Sometimes, so-called natural legal are restricted in their exercise of rights that harbor been attributed to others. In the realm of contract, the general rule in English Law is that anyone may enter into de jure covert contracts if they want to. However, a restriction exists to the effect that minors as defined under the Family Law Reform Act 1969 and people that are mentally incompetent are incapable of entering into binding contracts except for the supply of necessaries.5 In the case of Moulton v. Camroux6, It was held that unsoundness of mind constituted an adequate defence in a case for the enforcement of a contract.Also under the realm of Contract Law, non natural persons are attributed rights that would commonly only be attributed to natural persons.In the realm of criminal law, some categories of people may conduct their culpability reduced by virtue of their age or soundness of mind. A proved exculpation of insanity would mean that someone that has committed a crime is not punished in the equal way other legal persons.7 In the case of R v Sullivan8, on a excite for causing grievous bodily harm, on appeal to the House of Lords, It was held that the trial courts thought of not guilty by reason of insanity was appropriate. The same applies if the person is underage. He or she is not punished the same way a fully grown adult would be.In the realm of familiarity law, legal personality has been attributed to non natural persons. They are attributed with corporate personality. Such persons are known as juristic or artificial persons as opposed to natural persons. For legal purposes, they have the same rights and obligations as natural persons. They are capable of suing and being sued as an entity quite apart from the members. The implications of this personality were fully determined in the case of Salomon v Salomon9. In that case, It was held inter alia that at law, a company is a different entity from the subscribers to its entry of association. The members of a company are therefore not personally liable for its debts s that unless there are contrary provisions, the members are completely free form liability.10The above discussion seems to suggest that the concept of natural legal personality, if it actually exists, is not really relevant in English Law. The mere use of t he word legal would suggest the existence of a state or other body. There is also the enigma of how the natural rights are determined since a right for one person necessary constitutes an obligation for another. This suggests the necessary existence of some sort of agreement by the two parties which in turn, needs to be governed by certain rules. In terms of practical application, most laws prescribe their own definitions of legal persons and the limitations to this personality.The concept of natural legal personality does not exist in English Law and even if it did, It would merely be normative in nature and effect.BibliographyDavies, P. Gowers Principles of Modern Company Law (1998) London Sweet and Mawell.Douzinas, C. and Gearey, A. searing Juriisprudence The Political Philosophy of Justice (2005) Oxford Hart Publishing.Kelsen, H. entranceway to the Problames of Legal Theory (2002) Oxford Oxford University Press.Neuhouser, F. (Eds) Foundations of Natural Right (2000) Cambridge Cambridge University Press. ruleCriminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964Sale of Goods Act 1979CasesMoulton v. Camroux 2 Ex 487R v Sullivan 1983 2 All ER 673Salomon v Salomon 1897 A.C. 22 H.L.Web ResourcesThe remedy Dictionary http//encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/p/Natural+law1 The Free Dictionary http//encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/p/Natural+law2 Douzinas, C. and Gearey, A. Critical Juriisprudence The Political Philosophy of Justice (2005) Oxford Hart Publishing. Page 1823 Kelsen, H. Introduction to the Problames of Legal Theory (2002) Oxford Oxford University Press. Page 394 Kelsen, H. Introduction to the Problames of Legal Theory (2002) Oxford Oxford University Press. Page 40.5 Section 3 Sale of Goods Act 19796 2 Ex 4877 Under Sections 2(1) and 5 (1) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 19648 1983 2 All ER 6739 1897 A.C. 22 H.L.10 Davies, P. Gowers Principles of Modern Company Law (1998) London Sweet and Mawell. Pages 77-78 and 80.