The concept of legal personality for organizations of persons is at least as old as in ancient Rome: a multitude of collegiate institutions enjoyed the advantage of Roman law. Some common law systems distinguish between a corporation (for example, a multi-member corporation) and a corporation, which is a public office with a separate legal personality from the person holding the office (both entities have separate legal personality). Historically, most bodies have been exclusively ecclesiastical in nature (for example, the office of Archbishop of Canterbury is a single body), but a number of other public functions are now formed as single bodies. On the contrary, the legal entity that constitutes a link of a platform to an entity implies the attribution of the legal positions contained in the platform to the entity. Therefore, in order to determine who or what a legal entity may be, we need to determine what types of corporations may hold the relevant types of legal positions. First, the active legal entity requires that one can perform legal acts and be held legally liable. I will come back to that later. Passive legal personality, on the other hand, consists mainly of legal rights.35 There are possible objections to the relatively broad scope of the proposed jurisdiction. A critic might argue that a full understanding of the legal consequences of a transaction by the parties involved is necessary if the transaction is to be considered a legal act. Only sane adults can supposedly possess such understanding. However, such a requirement would be far too strong; Very often, it is not true that a sane adult is aware of all the legal implications of the action he is going to perform. For example, the legal consequences of marrying someone are usually very significant.
In the television series The Sopranos, a character decides to marry a mobster in order to claim the privilege of the spouse so as not to testify against him. However, she misunderstands the rules of privilege that do not apply to the couple. Does this mean that she did not act legally when she married him? It is quite unnecessary to define legal acts, according to which only skilled family lawyers actually perform legal acts at marriage. On the contrary, the threshold value must be set at a much lower level. Legal acts presuppose that one wants to bring about a legal consequence. Such an intention requires some understanding of institutional reality and how to manipulate that reality through the use of symbols. For example, in the case of a legal contract, it must be understood that one agrees to perform or refrain from performing an action, and that one must expect certain legal consequences if one does not respect one`s agreement. Traditional Jewish law apparently did not recognize the type of property involved in the idea of society. Indivision is usually expressed in the form of a *partnership (shuttafut; Maim. Yad, Sheluhin ve-Shuttafin 4–10; Tur.
and Sh. Ar., Ḥm 157-82). The main differences by which the company can be distinguished from the company are: the survival of a business depends on the lives of the partners or their respective heirs; the privileges, rights, responsibilities and obligations associated with a partnership, which fall almost directly on the individual members of the association; The chief executive officer of a partnership is interpreted as a representative of its members. Although society is not a legal category in classical sources of Jewish law, scholars have tried, with varying degrees of success, to find types of associations and property agreements in Jewish history that correspond to or approximate society and that can be considered embodiments of the concept of a legal or legal person. The fruits of these attempts can be summarized as follows: in this case, many theories of personal identity would consider X responsible for the acts, while X`s legal liability would extend only to the responsibilities of the company. Indian law defines two types of “legal entities”, human beings as well as certain non-human entities that have the same legal personality as human beings. Non-human entities that are legally designated as “corporations” “have ancillary rights and obligations; They can sue and be sued, can own and transfer property.” Because these non-human entities are “voiceless,” they are legally represented “by guardians and agents” to assert their legal rights and fulfill their legal duties and responsibilities. Specific non-human entities with the status of “legal entity” include “legal personality, political bodies, non-profit trade unions, etc.” as well as trusts, deities, temples, churches, mosques, hospitals, universities, colleges, banks, railways, municipalities and gram panchayats (village councils), rivers, all animals and birds. [22] I could sue the manager of a fast food restaurant if I slipped and fell in his restaurant, but the fast food business as a separate “person” did not contribute to my accident.