Modern juristic persons often are powerful entities and they play an influential role in society. Their activities are often accompanied by serious transgressions that have a severely detrimental impact on human beings and their environment. The effective prosecution of juristic persons is therefore necessary. The juridical foundations of the liability of juristic persons are, however, one of the most controversial issues in criminal law theory. Individualistic theories postulate that juristic persons are merely collections of individuals. The conduct and fault of individuals constituting a juristic person must therefore form the basis of the criminal liability of the juristic person. In the United States, for instance, the foundation for the criminal liability of corporations on federal level is vicarious liability. Another individualistic model (mostly associated with English common law jurisdictions) is the so–called doctrine of identification. Only the conduct of individuals who are regarded as the 'directing minds' of the organisation may be attributed to the organisation. These approaches deny the complex structures and decision making processes that exist especially in big corporate entities. According to realistic theories juristic persons are entities which are not dependant on their composite members. Each juristic person has its own unique personality. The culture and ethos of a juristic person influence the conduct of individuals attached to it as well as the degree in which the juristic person abides by the law. The identity of a corporation can be established by investigating the internal structure thereof. The existence of monitoring mechanisms and educational programmes within the organization, as well as the degree to which the organisation condones or disapproves of unlawful conduct, are some of the factors which may be indicative of the corporate culture. This approach is a development of the late twentieth century and has recently been adopted in the legislation of some foreign legal systems, most notably Australia. Section 332(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides the basis for the criminal liability of juristic persons in South Africa. In essence the conduct and fault of functionaries (and sometimes even outsiders) are attributed to the juristic person. In terms of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act juristic persons may only be fined upon conviction. This approach reflects the individualistic view of corporate criminal liability. In this study recommendations are made for the purpose of improving the South African law in this regard so as to reflect a more realistic approach. The recommendations are based on an examination of realistic models proposed by legal and social theorists and legislation adopted by foreign countries which are based on these theories. It is also recommended that more sentencing options must be made available to bring about the restructuring of corporations which have committed crimes. / Thesis (LL.D.)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2010.

Please read the summary in the front pages of the file named 00dissertation / Dissertation (LLM (Procedural Law))--University of Pretoria, 2007. / Procedural Law / unrestricted

Cette étude traite de la comparaison du régime de la responsabilité délictuelle du fait d’autrui en droit français et en droit chinois.Dans une première partie, plutôt micro-vision, la thèse se consacre à une étude au cas par cas des responsabilités du fait d’autrui dans les deux systèmes juridiques. Il s’agit précisément de la responsabilité du fait des mineurs (la responsabilité des parents en droit français et des tuteurs en droit chinois ainsi que la responsabilité des instituteurs en droit français et des établissements scolaires en droit chinois), de la responsabilité des employeurs du fait des personnes qu’ils emploient dans les deux droits et de la responsabilité générale du fait d’autrui qui est admise particulièrement en droit français, à la différence du droit chinois.La deuxième partie apporte une vision d’ensemble et propose au sein des deux systèmes de droit une étude des rapports internes du régime entre les différentes hypothèses de cette responsabilité ainsi qu’un examen des rapports externes de ce régime avec les responsabilités personnelles de droit commun et les mécanismes d’indemnisation collective.Pourtant, de ce mécanisme appliqué aux deux systèmes, l’analyse révèle un inconvénient commun : une harmonisation du régime fait défaut. A cet égard, sous la condition préalable de ne pas nuire à la particularité de chaque cas de figure, l’étude tente de restaurer une cohérence tant dans les rapports « internes » du régime de responsabilité du fait d’autrui, que dans ses rapports « externes » avec d’autres régimes. / This study is about a comparison of vicarious liability in French juridical system and in Chinese juridical system.In first part of this article, a more micro-vision, it is analyzed case by case of specific vicarious liability in two judicial systems. It is precisely about the acts of minors (the liability of parents in French law and liability of guardians in Chinese law, also the liability of teachers in French law and liability of school in Chinese law), the liability of employers and masters in two juridical systems and the general vicarious liability that is accepted particularly in French law, while the latter is different in Chinese law.The second part of this article concerns a whole vision and proposes a study of internal relations of two systems between different hypotheses of vicarious liability, and also an investigation of external relations of this system with the personal responsibility of “common law” and the mechanisms of collective compensation.However, of this mechanism applied at two systems, analysis reveals a common disadvantage: a lack of harmonization. In this aspect, considering the precondition of avoiding doing harm to particularity of each case of figure, the study tries to restore coherence both “internal” relations in systems of vicarious liability and “external” relations with other systems.

If the expectancy that someone was to act according to what we deem to be his or her “duty” was that straightforward, there would be no need to address the issues of liability of the employee for the wrongful acts of the employer. The recent - and some say alarming - trend in South Africa to hold employers (particularly the government) liable for wrongful, culpable acts committed by their employees, gives rise to difficulties and any inquiry into the possible vicarious liability of the employer should necessarily always start by asking whether there was in fact a wrongful, culpable act committed by the employee. If not, there can neither be direct liability of the employee nor vicarious liability by the employer. Where the employee did indeed commit a delict, the relationship between the wrongdoer and his or her employer at the time of the wrongdoing becomes important. It is then often, in determining whether the employee was acting in the scope of his or her employment that normative issues come to the fore. Over the years South African courts have devised tests to determine whether an employee was in fact acting in the scope of his employment. / Jurisprudence / LLM

If the expectancy that someone was to act according to what we deem to be his or her “duty” was that straightforward, there would be no need to address the issues of liability of the employee for the wrongful acts of the employer. The recent - and some say alarming - trend in South Africa to hold employers (particularly the government) liable for wrongful, culpable acts committed by their employees, gives rise to difficulties and any inquiry into the possible vicarious liability of the employer should necessarily always start by asking whether there was in fact a wrongful, culpable act committed by the employee. If not, there can neither be direct liability of the employee nor vicarious liability by the employer. Where the employee did indeed commit a delict, the relationship between the wrongdoer and his or her employer at the time of the wrongdoing becomes important. It is then often, in determining whether the employee was acting in the scope of his or her employment that normative issues come to the fore. Over the years South African courts have devised tests to determine whether an employee was in fact acting in the scope of his employment. / Jurisprudence / LL. M.

At the incarnation, Jesus Christ assumed the fallen human nature that He found. Having lived a life of perfect obedience in the fallen human flesh that He assumed, He voluntarily and willingly bore the sins of the entire human race and died the second death for, and in our place; thereby paying the penalty for sin. Jesus Christ bore our sins (acts or behaviours) vicariously, while sin as nature or a law residing in the fallen human flesh that He assumed was condemned in that flesh and received eternal destruction on the cross. Thus, on the cross, in Christ, God saved the entire humanity. On the cross, the condemnation that the entire humanity had received by being genetically linked to Adam was reversed in Christ. Thus, the entire human race stands legally justified. But this is a gift, which can either be received or rejected. Therefore, salvation is not automatic. / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology / M. Th. (Systematic Theology)

South Africa has been experiencing a number of violent strikes by trade unions in recent times. The issue is not only to hold unions liable for damage caused during strikes, but also to reduce the number of violent strikes. This study investigates if victims of such violence can hold trade unions liable for the violent acts committed by their members during industrial action. The Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (LRA) makes provision for the dismissal of employees who commit misconduct during an unprotected strike. It also provides the remedy of an interdict and a claim for just and equitable compensation which can be made against the union, during an unprotected strike. It is further possible to hold the union together with its members liable for damages in terms of the Regulation of Gatherings Act, 205 of 1993 (RGA). The study argues that a strike or conduct in furtherance of a strike that becomes violent could lose protection and the trade union should consequently be held liable, in terms of the LRA and/ or the RGA, for damages caused by its members. This study investigates the position in Canada, Botswana and Australia to determine if there could be any other basis upon which to hold trade union liable for the conduct of its members. The study recommends that the common law doctrine of vicarious liability should be developed by the courts to allow trade unions to be held liable for damages caused by members during violent industrial action. Policy considerations and changing economic conditions and the nature of strikes in the Republic favours the expansion of the doctrine of vicarious liability to trade union member relationship. / Mercantile Law / LL. D.

Parce qu’elle est une clé de compréhension du déclenchement de la responsabilité civile, l’anormalité est une notion centrale de l’institution. Elle s’identifie d’abord à travers le dommage, qui est une anomalie, une déviation par rapport au cours normal des choses. L’anormalité est ici intrinsèque au dommage et se définit comme le déséquilibre patrimonial et extrapatrimonial subi par la victime. La notion se découvre ensuite à l’extérieur du dommage, elle caractérise ce qu’il faut en plus du dommage pour engager une responsabilité. Cette anormalité, dite extrinsèque au dommage, tient son origine dans la faute civile : est en faute l’individu ayant adopté un comportement anormal.Classiquement cantonnée à l’élément objectif de la faute, avant qu’elle n’en épuise entièrement la définition, l’évolution montre que l’anormalité s’est diversifiée pour devenir un critère aux multiples visages. La notion se rencontre ainsi, par exemple, dans la responsabilité du fait des choses (anormalité de la chose), dans la responsabilité du fait d’autrui (anormalité du fait d’autrui) ou encore en matière de trouble du voisinage. De manière plus latente, l’anormalité peut également être mobilisée pour expliquer le risque sélectionné par le législateur pour faire l’objet d’un régime spécial (ex : accidents de la circulation, fait des produits défectueux). En définitive, l’anormalité est un critère juridique de discrimination qui peut, pour faire naître une obligation de réparation, être associé au fait générateur, au dommage ou au risque. Cette vision est forte de potentialités ; elle permet une présentation renouvelée de la matière autour des trois fondements que sont l’anormalité du fait générateur, l’anormalité du dommage et l’anormalité du risque. En délimitant le périmètre de la responsabilité civile, cette tripartition permet finalement une relecture de la matière à la lumière des trois fondements proposés. / Because it is key in understanding how it is triggered, the concept of abnormality is a notion of great importance in relation to civil liability. This concept is first of all found in relation to the notion of injury, which is an anomaly, a deviation from the normal course of things. The abnormality is an intrinsic part of an injury and is defined as a patrimonial and non-patrimonial disturbance suffered by a victim. The concept is then applied outside of the notion of injury, as it then characterises the elements additional to the injury that are needed in order for liability to arise. This aspect of the abnormality, the extrinsic side, originates from the tort principle: that one is liable for one’s own abnormal behaviour.Although classically confined to the objective element of fault, the notion of abnormality has outgrown its original definition and developed into a criterion with many applications. The concept is used, for instance, in relation to product liability (abnormality of an object/product), vicarious liability, or even in relation to nuisance neighbours. There is perhaps also a latent possibility for the concept of abnormality to be used by the legislator for derivative special liability regimes (e.g. defective products, traffic accidents). Ultimately, the concept of abnormality is a form of legal criterion that, in order to give rise to compensation, can be associated to a triggering event, an injury, or a risk. This vision opens up many possibilities: it enables a new way of presenting this subject matter around the three principles that are the abnormality of the triggering event, the abnormality of the injury and the abnormality of the risk. By defining the perimeter of civil liability, this tripartition actually enables a new understanding of the subject matter through these three proposed principles.

專門職業過去向以其負擔無限責任豎立專業形象，然英美等大型訴訟的發生反使得專業人士成了求償的「深口袋」，這正是英美有限責任合夥制度產生的濫觴。 英美的有限責任合夥立法初衷，係為律師、會計師等專業人士承擔無限責任尋求解套的途徑，而面對我國專門職業者如律師、會計師等，亦遭遇大案，面臨無限責任沈重負擔之際，本論文嘗試從英美法制，尤其是以美國法制為著眼點，尋求制度引進的可行性。事實上令專業負有限責任，在美國尚可組成專業公司或有限責任企業，然此兩種制度除了稅制考量外，也較偏向公司經營管理，甚至因為可以公開招募而容易觸動聯邦證券交易法的干預，也因此，有限責任合夥延續舊有合夥法律關係的組織特性，廣受傳統上以合夥成立的專業組織所青睞。 以美國有限責任合夥法制而言，其本質為合夥，因此其優勢為保有合夥諸多彈性自由的管理規則，賦予合夥人廣大的協議空間，另一方面使合夥人僅負有限責任，免除無限責任的負累，然反面觀之，其最爭議者在於債權人保護的疑慮，美國於2001年爆發恩隆弊案，涉案的安達信會計師事務所正是於伊利諾州註冊登記為有限責任合夥，有限責任合夥在恩隆案中於是受到前所未有的考驗，事實上在美國各州，也透過保險、獨立基金的設置甚至揭開面紗法則適用不同程度保障債權人。 相較之下，英國的有限責任合夥法制，則以公司法為其內涵，因此有限責任合夥法受到更多的管理與限制，除了內部管理沿襲合夥的規定外，在事務執行及破產清算等，均需依循公司法規的管制，在債權人保護上英國法則直接在其有限責任合夥法規定成員擔保及資產取回的機制。 本文認為在立法走向上，得借鏡美國法制，另立新法，使有限責任合夥維持其合夥本質，並賦予法人格，且加強債權人保護之配套措施，期能提供專業組織架構的另一選擇。 / Professionals such as accountants and lawyers used to keep its reputation by taking unlimited liability. However, such unlimited liability makes these professionals to be deep pockets, as the result of the frequent lawsuits in recent years. Due to this reason, adopting limited liability partnership (LLP) seems to be the solution. LLP is a form of doing business, combining the feature of a limited corporation and the flexibility of a general partnership. LLP in United Kingdom and United States all granted the privilege of limited liability to the innocent partners, also keeping their personal assets apart from the creditors’ claim. LLP is available to all types of business in UK; however, in some US states, the LLP is only available to specific licensed professionals. Because of the character of the limited liability, protecting the interest of the creditors would be the most significant problem. To solve this dilemma, US adopt several methods such as using the insurance, doctrine of piercing the veil and creating the asset segregation to balance the interest between the professionals and the creditors. In UK, the company law and insolvency law all tried to cover LLP, in order to keep the LLP’s assets as a guarantee to creditors; such laws also request to disclose important business information of prospective risks to the public. Besides, both UK and US laws require the word “LLP” must be specified in the name of any LLP organizations. In 2001, the Enron scandal was a shock to the world. Arthur Andersen, a well known LLP accounting firm which provides dishonest service for Enron, has triggered the debate of whether LLP is still appropriate. Therefore, my study is going to analyze the pros and cons of LLP in the following chapter. Because of the unlimited liability is the only choice for professionals in Taiwan, we are going to learn from the UK and US laws. As for my conclusion, it is necessary enact an LLP Act to provide an alternative to the professionals.