The mode of solving legal issues within the Anglo-American legal culture has been usually based upon human experience and pragmatic reasoning. This is also the way for the U. S. American legal doctrine to approach the concept of person in law as the basic legal institution. I tend to argue that such approach should be seen as incorrect since fundamental legal concepts – such as a person in law – should not be constructed upon practical human experience. I would claim that this intentionally “anti-theoretical” attitude is the reason why the Anglo-American legal terminology applicable to the concept of person appears unclear. It is difficult to identify differences between “legal entity” and “legal person” as well as the relation and/or difference between terms “person” and “personhood
b2_Indeed, the reason and will of a juristic person are in fact always simultaneously attributed to a distinct individual, who certainly is not devoid of his own legal personality (personhood) merely on the grounds of being the governing body of a juristic person. Accordingly, the reason and will of a juristic person will always represent “someone else´s reason and will” as they will always come from “someone else”. From this viewpoint, a juristic person cannot enjoy legal capacity stricto sensu, and can merely be considered to “have” such capacity.
CS
a2_Z tohoto pohledu právnická osoba svéprávná být nemůže, za svéprávnou může být leda považována.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.