Extract
[...] Specialties of the processual branches British and American business law differ both in terms of organization and procedure. From an organizational point of view, the UK has a central body for company registration, UK Companies House, which is not the case in the USA, where it is left to the discretion of the federal states to register companies set up within their borders. This is why the Companies Act was passed in 2006 by the British Parliament with a view to harmonizing and, above all, transposing the relevant European directives (Financial Reporting Council, Guidance on the Strategic Report, London, June 2022, p. [...]
[...] The rule is clear: American judges consider themselves bound by their own decisions and by those handed down by hierarchically superior judges (Roland Séroussi, Introduction au droit comparé, Paris, Dunod pp. 73-123)". The same applies to British judges. Despite these common features between the two national jurisdictions, apart from the statutory framework which means that the judiciary is bound to apply the decisions of the legislature or the executive when the latter issues acts in conformity with the Constitution (written for the USA, informal and decided by Parliament in the differences have historically emerged and are particularly revealing in business law. B. [...]
[...] More specifically, they both recognize that there may be a case of unicity between the partner and the business (or sole trader), and a case of partnership between several shareholders (or diversified partnership). In both cases, the sole trader presents considerable advantages, especially for a modest entrepreneur, but disadvantages to match. The advantages lie mainly in the simplicity of the steps involved in both creating and dissolving the status, as well as in the practicality of the activity. Indeed, this type of status requires no major steps, and is highly flexible in terms of the entrepreneur's commercial and legal activities. [...]
[...] Business law both in UK and the United States share common features, and distinctive traits. Although they share ground in common law, they are distinguishing themselves on fundamental legal objects as elaborated by national jurisdictions. This is so because, mainly, of the influence of European law and civil law customs onto the British way of thinking about legal cases in recent years. Nonetheless, the distinctions appear in the case for legal structures, but also in ways to protect and serve the legal interest of the businessman involved in such transaction from a procedural viewpoint. [...]
[...] This constitutionalizing interpretation of the common law has its roots in both British and American business law, and in particular in their procedural branches and the legal structures they contain. Business law is traditionally defined as part of the law of a state and, more specifically, the contract law of a specific state. "Business law is made up of the laws that set out the rights, duties and obligations of people in business. Business law balances the interests of those in business and people like producers and consumers, buyers and sellers, lenders and borrowers" (Paul Latimer, Australian Business Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press p. [...]
