Talk:Limited liability
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Limited liability article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
Organization
[edit]limited liability organization 180.194.193.238 (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Intro of the article.
[edit]The current introduction -- “Limited liability is a legal status in which a person's financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, most commonly the value of a person's investment in a corporation, company, or joint venture” -- feels difficult to decode, especially for general readers. It might help if the article included a clearer explanation, such as: “Limited liability means that an owner or shareholder can only lose the money they invested in the business, and they are not personally responsible for the company’s debts beyond that amount.” Adding context about why limited liability exists, how it protects personal assets, and why it’s important in business law could make the introduction easier to understand and more informative.
-- Slavuska Shabliy Slavuska Shabliy (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Good morning
[edit]I want to confirm if liability shares company has office in Nigeria? George ukwuegbu (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Early claim of monastic limited liability is dubious
[edit]From Gemini 3.6 Flash (extended thinking):
The Wikipedia text conflates the medieval emergence of the corporation aggregate (persona ficta) with the modern financial shield of limited equity liability. In 14th–15th century English common law, influenced by canonists such as Sinibaldo Fieschi (Pope Innocent IV), ecclesiastical bodies, boroughs, and trade guilds were granted legal personality, enabling them to hold property in mortmain, contract obligations, and sue or be sued collectively. However, assigning an entity a separate legal personality is conceptually distinct from capping the financial losses of its individual constituent members or equity investors.
In the case of monastic communities, individual monks took vows of absolute poverty and suffered civil death (civiliter mortuus) under common law, rendering them incapable of holding personal property that creditors could attach. The abbey's debts were satisfied solely out of the monastic estate, an artifact of monastic vows and canonical property holding rather than a statutory limited liability shield. Similarly, medieval trade guilds functioned as regulatory associations of independent masters rather than profit-pooling joint-stock firms, leaving individual members fully exposed to personal commercial obligations under standard common-law debt action.
True limited liability for equity investors in commercial enterprises did not exist in medieval English law and was only enacted via statute through the Limited Liability Act 1855 on 14 August 1855. Prior to 1855, English courts treated joint-stock ventures as unincorporated partnerships, exposing every investor to joint and several liability to the full extent of their personal fortune. The Wikipedia citation tag remains permanently unsatisfied because the claim fundamentally confuses entity asset isolation with investor liability protection.
I work heavily with these models, and this passes the bar on my highly refined hallucination smell test, which is usually reliable to an 80% standard. That same smell test is why I quickly challenged this uncited assertion, in the first place. — MaxEnt 00:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)