Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U. S. (Wheat.) , 1819, quoted from Lawrence E. Mitchell, Lawrence A. Cunningham and Lewis D. Soloman, Corporate Finance and Governance: Cases, Materials, and Problems for an Advanced Course in Corporations, Second Edition, Carolina Academic Press, 1996, P7.
Accountability是近年来得到广泛运用的概念，对此的定位，参见 邓峰：《论经济法上的责任：公共责任与财务责任的融合：accountability》，《中国人民大学学报》2003年第3期。
See S. P. Scott, A. M., The Civil Law, Vol. 3, VI The Enactments of Justinian The Digest of Pandects, electronic version, available at http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps03_j2-03.htm.
See Katsuhito Iwai, Persons, Things and Corporations: The Corporate Personality Controversy and Comparative Corporate Governance, Op, cit. P601.
See Arthur W. Machen, Corporate Personality, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 24, 1911, P253—261.
See Gregory A. Mark, The Personification of the Business Corporation in American Law, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 54, Fall, 1987, P1441—1481.
Quoted from John Flynn, The Jurisprudence of Corporate Personhood: The Misuse of Legal Concept, in Warren J. Samuels and Arthur S. Miller, eds., Corporations and Society: Power and Responsibility, Greenwood Press,1987, Pp277-282.
See Morton J. Horwitz, Santa Clara Revisited: The Development of Corporate Theory, West Virginia Law Review, Vol. 88, 1985, P173.
See Herbert Hovenkamp, Enterprise and American Law, 1836—1937, Harvard University Press, 1991, P43.
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 778, 1978. Quoted from Gregory A. Mark, The Personification of the Business Corporation in American Law, Op. Cit., footnotes 3.
See Michael J. Phillips, Reappraising the Real Entity Theory of the Corporation, Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 21, Pp1061—1077, 1994; See also Gregory A. Mark, The Personification of Business Corporation in American Law, Op. Cit.
事实上，在
民法通则制定之前，中国学术界对法人本质的讨论，主要是集中在刑法学界，而不是民法学界。民法学界对公司本质的探讨，从来是沿用了30年代的梅仲协先生的总结。参见 邓峰：《公司出资审查和出资监管》，《安徽大学法律评论》，第2卷，2001年。
对此一个引申的讨论，是法人人格否定，是一个不能自圆其说的概念。如果法人的人格遭到否定，其依据仅仅是法人从事了不当行为的话，那么这个概念就是不周延的，因为任何一种组织形式的非法行为，都会导致主体资格的丧失，比如合伙从事了违法行为，同样也要被吊销营业执照；而反之，如果公司的股东变成了承担“直索责任”，法人的人格并不因此遭到否定，法人的人格只有在执照被吊销之后才完全丧失。因此，在股东责任的承担上，用“刺破公司面纱制度”显然是更为准确和更为合理的。这种错误，是将法人和有限责任混同之后的结果，也是将民法理论延伸到其力所不能及的组织理论之中的结果。鲍威尔在1931年就分析了这一问题，指出使用“人格否认”是错误的，而刺破公司面纱是“更准确的表述”。See Frederick J. Powell, Parent and Subsidiary Corporations: Liability of a Parent Corporation for the Obligations of its Subsidiary, chapter 1; 沃姆斯则指出，“人格否认”比刺破公司面纱范围更大。See I. Maurice Wormser, Piercing the Veil of the Corporate Entity, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 12, 1912, P496+; See also I. Maurice Wormser, The Disregard of the Corporate Fiction and Allied Corporate Problems, 1927.
参见 江平、方流芳：《法人的本质和为拟制论辩护》，《中国法学》1998年第3期。
A. Hacker, ed., 1964, The Corporation Take-over, Harper and Row, quoted from James S. Coleman, Foundation of Social Theory, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1990, Pp554—556.
参见 邓峰：《经济法学漫谈：正义、效率与社会本位》，载史际春、邓峰主编《经济法学评论》2003年第四卷，中国法制出版社2004年版。
See Melvin A. Eisenberg, The Conception that the Corporation is a Nexus of Contracts, and the Dual Nature of the Firm, The Journal of Corporation Law, Vol. 24, 1999, Pp819—836. See also William T. Allen, Jack B. Jacobs and Leo E. Strine, Jr., The Great Takeove Debate: A Mediation on Bridging the Conceptual Divide, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 69, Pp1067—1100.
