Author
Abstract
American law counts the corporation two ways. RICO treats a corporation and its owner as distinct whenever they differ in legal status (Cedric Kushner). Antitrust treats a parent and its wholly owned subsidiary as one actor, guided by one corporate consciousness (Copperweld). This paper argues that both tests are sound because a corporation is a unity of order in Aquinas's sense: many persons really ordered to one end, a unity that is neither a mere name nor a substance. Legal personality is the law's recognition of that unity. Since "one" is said in many ways, a corporate family can be many in form and one in function, and the dilemma that defendants must be either one enterprise or separate conspirators fails. The paper's new claim is consistency of respect. A party may count itself as one in one respect and many in another, but not both ways in the same respect. A firm that claims one directing mind to defeat conspiracy liability therefore takes on attribution of its parts' decisions to that mind. This is the Digest's rule that benefit follows burden, and it replaces the weaker claim that choosing a corporate form estops a firm. On the same ground, corporate scienter belongs to the ordering principle rather than to knowledge scattered among employees, and deliberately fragmenting knowledge is affected ignorance. Drafted with the assistance of Claude (Anthropic); the author is responsible for the arguments and citations.
Suggested Citation
Tangeman, Trey Noble, 2026.
"Corporate Personality as a Unity of Order,"
LawArchive
mkzga_v1, Center for Open Science.
Handle:
RePEc:osf:lawarc:mkzga_v1
DOI: 10.31228/osf.io/mkzga_v1
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:lawarc:mkzga_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://lawarchive.info/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.