Talk:Legal person

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expansion on POV from other countries[edit]

I expanded a little the section about Brazilian law, and corrected the term from Legal Person to Juridical Person as per the article's definition. But as a whole, the article severely lacks in considerations from legal theory around the world and examples from outside the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monteparnas (talk • contribs) 19:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggested on corporate personhood debate[edit]

There was a suggested merge, but no discussion on talk. Cleaned up tags and archived old talk in prep for cleanup. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have to say, I find the Not to be confused with Corporate personhood sign on top is rather confusing... and not only because of the section called Controversies about "corporate personhood" in the United States. Littledogboy (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was confusing. Rather than remove it completely, I moved it to the "See also" section. There is already a section "Controversies about "corporate personhood" in the United States" so having a link in the "See also" section is redundant. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. section - POV questionable[edit]

The section on corporate personhood in the U.S. sounds like the Supreme Court's decision is an unquestionably good idea, with only a few people in opposition to it. Only one "social commenter" is named as being against the ruling. There are many other people in media, government, and just plain folks who also think it's a bad idea, and so the section is very one-sided. I don't have time to beef it up, but someone who does have the time may want to look it over and edit for POV. Textorus (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the entry on corporate personhood says that the origin of that term is the 1819 case Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. I'm having trouble understanding why that case is then not mentioned in this section, since it would seem a lot less controversial, being an actual ruling. But in any case, shouldn't both cases be mentioned? I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm missing something. Are the issues of legal personality and corporate personhood two completely different things? --Netsettler (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. section - POV questionable[edit]

The article says Temples in some legal systems have separate legal personality and cites Williams v The Shipping Corporation of India (US District Court, Eastern District Virginia), 10 March 1980, 63 ILR 363 which doesn't include the word "temple." In the Indian legal system, a temple Deity is a juristic person and the property of the temple held in its name. See http://tamilbrahmins.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/do-the-treasures-belong-to-the-temple/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arumugaswami (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Aggregate loops[edit]

The hyperlink in this page for Corporate Aggregate is redirected to this page. It would be helpful if that legal term had its own page.ClassicalScholar 21:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)

History[edit]

The history section is missing many details. It would benefit the article if an expert could write more extensively about when and how exactly the legal personality came to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.169.21.62 (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not always necessairy to sell products[edit]

A legal personality is not always necessairy to sell items. For example, many of the companies supplying shopiing cart systems allow users to sell items, even if they don't have a legal personality themselves. This is possible as they themselves have a legal personality and allow the users to use this legal personality to sell their products.

Mention in article, it's quite important info. 81.242.230.241 (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

At the end of this split there should be three be articles: legal persons = {juristic persons + natural persons}. Only the current lede should stay in Legal person. In the name of clarity! Littledogboy (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea that there should be an article for juristic persons. But I can't agree with the proposal completely because the meaning of "legal person" is same as that of "juristic person". Correctly, "persons" (any subjects that have legal personality) = {"legal persons"(= "juristic persons", "artificial persons", or "moral persons")　+ "natural persons"}. So, this article can be renamed as "Person (Law)" but not "Legal person".--Poohpooh817 (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Poohpooh817, thank you for taking interest in the matter. However, take a look at the first three references in the article, including Oxford Dic. of Law, which all assert that "A legal person is any individual, firm or government agency with the right to enter into binding agreements." Littledogboy (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. There seems that "legal persons" has two meanings:persons (entities with legal personalities, including natural persons) and juridical persons. For the latter meaning, please see, for example, Black's Law Dictionary.
So, I am still against the idea to rename this article to "legal person". "Person" is the most popular word for the former meaning so you can find an article for this word in every legal dictionary whereas "legal person" is comparatively rare in such dictionaries (and usually it is explained in the latter meaning.).--Poohpooh817 (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For examples of the explanation in the latter meaning in online dictionaries, please see legal person in businessdictionary.com, legal person in findlaw.com as well as juridical person and artificial person in Black's Law Dictionary (2nd ed.).--Poohpooh817 (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Poohpooh817. "Person" is usually used.
The "legal person" in the sources pointed out by Littledogboy may be a way to stress "a person in the legal meaning", "a person, in the law topics" (akin to "disambiguating" in Wikipedia ...) . Have those sources--109.53.199.221 (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC) article about "person" too?[reply]

I removed the split proposal tag as this discussion seems to have ended. This article encompasses Legal person and Judicial person, which both redirect to this article. If the article get too long (not even close at this point), then we can discuss spliting it up at that time. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec's Charter of Human Right and Freedoms[edit]

In Canada, in the province of Quebec, their "Charter of Human Right and Freedoms" CHAPTER I ARTICLE 1 states the following:

1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom. He also possesses JURIDICAL personality. 1975, c. 6, s. 1; 1982, c. 61, s. 1.

Are we to assume from this Charter Document that Human Beings "possess" a JURIDICAL PERSONALITY (aka an "artificial person")?


http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/C_12/C12_A.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.113.146 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal personality and Separate legal entity[edit]

Please clarify distinctions. --109.53.199.221 (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Hartmann[edit]

I added a tag to the sentence regarding Thom Hartmann in the Controversies about "corporate personhood" in the United States section. I was not clear how this information is relevant to the topic. After looking at this revision, it looks like the information was added by someone trying to give examples of opposing viewpoints. I have left the sentence for now, since I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, and there may be a valid reason for the information to be included here.

The main reason I tagged it was because it seems like an advertisement to me. Perhaps someone with more knowledge will be able to better connect this fact with the rest of the article or section and create some relevance, but my opinion is that it does not contribute much to the article at this point. — OranL (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that these legal "entities" actually exist or are they believed in purely as an article of scriptural faith?[edit]

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If we don't just take the government legal dogmas as articles of faith, is there any empirical evidence these "Entities" have any sort of tangible existence outside of the imagination? Is belief in these entities part of the modern state religion?

Please provide some evidence to corroborate the dogmas if there is any, thanks.LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, please read WP:Not a forum and WP:No original research. If you have suggestions for the article based on reliable sources, please let us know. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence corroborating or supporting the claims made in the article. Are we supposed to take it on faith?LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be understanding what WP:Not a forum means -- Article talk pages are for article improvement only.
Wikipedia just summarizes professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources say about topics, without any additional interpretation or elaboration by the editors. We do not use original research, we do not argue for or against what the sources say with our own thoughts.
If you do not have reliable sources to add to the article, please find a political or legal discussion forum for your thoughts. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines
"Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources, discussing conflicts or inconsistencies among sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it."
I'm asking if there are actually any facts to support the claims of the article: that there are these invisible "persons". Whether or not the existence of these invisible "persons" can be supported by any factual evidence. I really don't care to discuss my personal thoughts here. Just inquiring as to the facts (or lack thereof, whichever the case may be). Thanks. LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LogicMaster777: Neither the article nor the material on this talk page included an mention of "invisible" persons until you introduced this verbiage. Famspear (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so have you ever seen a juridical person or do you know of any sightings of "juridical persons"? Can you link to a photo of a "juridical person"? Where/when is the last time you saw one personally? Why don't you provide a photo or a link to a photo (or other evidence) of a juridical person? The article doesn't include any photos of these "juridical persons" or any evidence of their existence. All the citations merely refer to legal opinions without any actual evidence.

And, as already pointed out to you, you should consider finding a political or legal discussion forum, somewhere else on the internet. Famspear (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, but I am only interested in discussing the facts/evidence(or lack thereof)/ supporting the claims of the article here(as per the Wiki site rules). Do you know of any actual FACTS or EVIDENCE supporting the existence of "juridical persons"? If you have any FACTS or any empirical evidence of a "juridical person" please share it. Thanks.LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LogicMaster777: Again, the article does not say anything about someone being able to "see" a juridical person. The article mentions nothing about a "photo" of a juridical person. Please review Wikipedia guidelines on editing -- in particular, the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. We're not here to debate the existence or non-existence of juridical persons, or whether you can "see" one, or whether they're "invisible." Take it somewhere else. Famspear (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article says juridical persons exist. I'm not interested in debating this conclusion. I am interested if there is any empirical evidence supporting the conclusion. Is there any empirical evidence supporting such a conclusion? Or is it a faith-based belief(no evidence). If there is evidence, please state what that empirical evidence is. Thanks. I'm not interested in debating beliefs or opinions, I'm simply wondering whether there is any empirical evidence supporting the claims of the article, or whether they are unfounded(not supported by evidence). Thanks.LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split (again)[edit]

I propose to establish the following definition of "legal person":

> a legal fiction, which allows to abstract away the differences between natural persons, juridical persons and other entities such as countries

I suppose the term "legal person" was established to have a distinction between "juridical person" as a group of people, organization and "juridical person" as a human being who is also a subject of the law. You see, "juridical person" have two meanings: a broad meaning "subject of the law" and a narrow meaning "a subject which is registered as a business or (non-)government entity". And it looks like the narrow meaning prevails.

This article also tries to define "legal personality" as something different from "legal capacity". While it's clear that there are only 4 concepts:

There's no 5th concept of "legal personality". It's either the fact of entity being a legal person or having a legal capacity.

It's always difficult to define abstract things, but let's keep things simple and logical.

--Vanuan (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I explained before, "legal person" usually means "juridical person." The conceptual structure is as follows.

Person: anyone who has its own legal personality.
Natural person: a person that is a human being.
Juridical person (=legal person): a person that is not a human being, such as a corporation.

--Poohpooh817 (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legal personality. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legal personality. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legal person. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption section problematic[edit]

Hi! Just a random internet-denizen stumbling past. The "adoption" section strikes me as being horribly problematic. Apart from it not being clear to which jurisdiction it purports to refer, I highly doubt any legal system actually functions in the way described. It might be best to remove it entirely - I'm quite sure a discussion on adoption has little to no bearing on legal personhood in any case.

I'm not a regular editor, so I thought I'd better leave it to you guys! 105.227.50.34 (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 February 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Legal person → Legal entity – WP:COMMONNAME. The term "entity" is used far more commonly in legal, accounting and business contexts than is "person" or "legal person". See ngrams В²C ☎ 17:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, the page is about legal entities, such as people, corporations, or other parties in legal situations and contracts. Not just persons. Surprising this was at this name. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the term "legal person" emphasizes the concept that a non-human entity [sic] can for the purposes of law be treated as if it were a person, which this article discusses. The title "legal entity" does not carry such emphasis. feminist (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose exactly, the term "legal person" emphasizes the concept that a non-human entity [sic] can for the purposes of law be treated as if it were a person, which is exactly what this article discusses. The title "legal entity" can mean a range of things in law. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per In ictu oculi. "Entity" is too broad of a term (anything ranging from a government agency could be a legal entity) and this articles scope deals with the legality that non-persons (such as corporations) can legally be considered persons under said law. cookie monster (2020) 755 19:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above. Use of the word "person" has implications specific to the term. BD2412 T 23:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even if it were correct to say that the term "entity" is "used far more commonly", etc. (and I'm not convinced that it is), the article is fine with the title "Legal person". Famspear (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_person&oldid=1216541809"