Black Friday: Tornado In Canada :: essays research papers

Black Friday: Tornado in Canada "The roof was caving in and I thought I was going to die. It was like your worst nightmare!" said Mary Grandish. Most people think they will die when they see,or hear of a tornado heading their way. Although all the details of the formation of a tornado are not yet understood, it is known that tornados are the result of great instability in the atmosphere and often appear during severe thunderstorms (see appendix #1 for a scientific explaination on how it really starts). Strong updrafts present in severe thunderstorms result in a rotational momentum. Falling rain and/or snow probably drags air from aloft when it comes falling down. The combination of severe thunderstorms and sweltering heat are the breeding grounds for a tornados' formation. The first sign of a tornado is a strong dust whirlwind along with a funnel growing from the storm cloud. A more organized funnel descends farther from the cloud, sometimes even touching the ground. Funnel winds generally move counterclockwise and the funnel can move slowly or at about 100/ft per second. Eventually the tornado becomes fragmented and dissipates causing the end of the tornado. Tornados are the cause of great destruction and devistation in the area in which they occur. For example the Tri-State Tornado of 1925 occured in the Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas States. This tornado was one of the largest tornados recorded in history. It killed nearly 625 people. However, the tornado which strikes closest to home has occured on what Canadians have come to know as "BLACK FRIDAY". The tornado of "Black Friday" touched down on July 31st, 1987 at 2:59 pm. (See appendix #2 for the torndo path). (See appendix #'s 4&5 for maps locating the disaster sights). 27 people were killed; 25 people died during the tornado and 2 died later in the hospital. Hundreds of other people were injured and thousands were left homeless. Edmontonians faced a horrible natural phenomenon which destroyed homes, farms, and businesses. (See appendix #3 for a picture of what it looked like after the tornado struck up the street). More than 25 auto dealers faced a loss of more than $100,000 worth of cars, which were struck by hail measurihg at up to 10 inches in circumference. Not only were auto dealers' cars affected, but many other privately owned cars were damaged to varying degrees. The Kennedale storm sewer overloaded and outfall collapsed, which caused many people to call in complaining of flooded basements. Damage estimites were listed at between $150-$300 million dollars. $20 million dollars damage was done to Evergreen Mobile Home Trailer Park; $50-$70 million dollars

The Medias Role in the Escalation of Palmer Raids and the Red Scare in

Newspapers are supposed to give us an unbiased factual report of important events, but that isn’t always the case.   Newspapers can make certain events seem more important and more consequential than other events.   This happened during the Palmer Raids of the early 1920’s.   Newspapers made the Palmer Raids more prevalent and Anti-Communist feelings stronger among the American public during the 1920’s. To understand how the media escalated the Red Scare and Palmer Raids it helps to have a brief history of them.   After World War I there was a Red Scare among many Americans.   There are many explanations for this: rampant inflation, a tough job market, strikes, race riots, and the public’s need for a scapegoat (Duminel 218).   When Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer’s home was bombed he immediately believed it was the Communists and went after all of them.   In November of 1919, and December of 1920 the U.S. Department of Justice under Palmer’s direction conducted raids in a number of prominent cities (Remelgas 3).   Many persons were arrested without warrants, and without being given proper rights.   Over five thousand people were arrested, and a total of two hundred and forty nine people were deported (Remelgas 4).   After these raids and unlawful arrests, Palmer was called before the House Rules Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee and conv icted of using Government funds in an improper way causing the end of the first Red Scare. In journalism there are certain standards used to draw attention to certain articles.   Alexandra Remelgas states: The standards of responsible journalism are useful in examining the press coverage of the Palmer Raids.   Standards of responsible journalism are limited by the selection of and emphas... ..., Edward A.   â€Å"Heaven On Earth.†Ã‚   Detroit Free Press Magazine 11 Jan. 1920: 2 Hoyt, Edwin.   The Palmer Raids, 1919-1920 An Attempt to Suppress Dissent. New York:   The Seabury Press. Murray, Robert. Red Scare: A Study In National Hysteria, 1919-1920. Minnesota: North   Central Publishing, 1955. â€Å"Reds Plotted Country Wide Strike Arrests Exceeded 5,000, 2,635 Held; 3 Transports Ready For Them† New York Times 4 Jan 1920: 1 Remelgas, Alexandra. â€Å"News Reporting And Editorial Interpretation Of The Palmer Raids 1919-1920 By Three Detroit Newspapers: A Study† Thesis For Degree Of M.A. MSU, 1970,       Shulam, Alix.   To the Barricades: The anarchist Life Of Emma Goldman. New York.  Ã‚   Thomas and Crowell Company, 1971. Who Built America, v. II. â€Å"Between to Wars – The Palmer Raids.† CD Rom. 25 January  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   2000.   http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/hist409/red.html   

Discuss the value requirements" needed to gain the Diploma of Social Work

In my essay I will discuss the â€Å"value requirements† needed to gain the Diploma of Social Work and give 6 examples from my own work experience that I think are relevant from a legal perspective. Within the essay I shall begin by defining the term ‘values'. Values are based on the belief that something is good and desirable, the acceptable standard of a person, group or society within. It defines what is important, worthwhile and worth striving for. Values are very much influenced by the views that people have about how society should be organised and how social relationships should be regulated. Values are distinguished from knowledge. Traditionally Social Work values for examples are user or client self-determination, acceptance, non-judgemental attitudes and confidentiality these can also be a guide of conduct and actions of social workers. Ref. : Dictionary of Social Work I'm working in a direct access hostel that accommodates homeless men. These men are suffering from either alcohol or drug addiction and also from mental health problems. One of my values is not to drink alcohol or at least only in a considered amount. Also using drugs is something, which I for myself consider is against my value-belief. The implication towards one part of my client group, those men who are dependent on alcohol, could be that I preach them you should not drink so much and to do this and that . I could treat them in a disadvantage way because I disagree with their lifestyle. Putting them down and may make them feel there are â€Å"low† or even worse, not worth my time. They might be all alcoholics, drug-addicts etc. but I still have to treat everyone as an individual and according to his or her needs. They may have all different reasons while they depend on alcohol and drugs (i. e. loss of partner, marriage breakdown, repossession of house or flat, bankruptcy). I look at one persons life and look what happen in their life, the problems they had and if there are pattern and solutions to help that particular person to do one thing or another. I can put my own life experience into account if it is relevant and may help. Each individual is also unique in their way. Every human being is different like a fingerprint is, so is every ones values and diversity's (i. . sexual orientation, religion, culture, nationality, skin colour, class and age). Every one likes to be respected but this in turn should be a value for each one to respect anyone else. To recognise all the differences in each individual in each different case and use these differences and to help to help themselves and that promotes the people's right to choose. People who are dependent on alcohol and drugs can not be treated all in the same way. They are all individuals and unique and got to be treated as such. I have to use their backgrounds or beliefs and can not apply the same remedy for everybody to cure them. In the hostel we also have Muslim residents, who do not eat pork because of their religious beliefs. We have to advise the canteen staff accordingly to this to prepare different meals for them that do not came in conflict with their religion. Also to share a room with somebody who keeps an animal is out of question for a Muslim, because in their religion it is seen as â€Å"dirty†, not clean. So I have to make sure to put him with somebody else or in a single room to respect and value his needs. A client or resident comes to have a word with me in private. But he wants that what is said in private does not to go any further than between the two of us. I have to tell him that in my position I can not guarantee this. Than I have to take what he says to me on board and consider if this kind of information can really be kept away form other members of staff. In my working environment I have the duty to share â€Å"information† with my other colleges, team-leader, counsellor and management. If for example he tells me that while he is drinking heavily he also becomes aggressive and might sometimes â€Å"blow his fuse† if anybody annoys him, but does not anybody to know because people may start to treat him differently. This is a matter where I have to pass this information on. Even if he has a right to privacy but in these kind of circumstances the staff and other residents are put in danger. Information has to be revealed to staff only and some sort of precocious measures have to be taken. But if there is only minor disclosures than it will be kept confidential. If one of the residents has HIV/Aids this is a matter of strict confidentiality and will not disclosed to anyone else within or outside the organisation, or recorded in the resident's file, without the person's permission. The only exception in that case is if life-threatening injury or illness occurs. Disclosure to medical personnel is essential to treatment. Also if major blood loss takes place and there is a risk of transmission to other residents or staff. The way we assist people to improve there lives simply starts with befriending, providing material and recreational resources. Also activities like scrabble, pool, table-tennis, chess groups, darts and competitions, video and bingo nights, photography, football, craft. Registering with GP's and also at occasions go for day trips to the seaside and visiting theatres. Organising IT courses and helping with finding a job and resettlement. Health care and counselling is also provided. I speak to residents about any kind of problems or help they may want and advise them about referrals to other hostels, benefits and personnel matters. I come a lot of times in contact with people addicted to drugs and assist them in the counselling process to try to get them of drugs By trying them to get off drugs it helps them to take control of their life and their life takes a different direction. I have to speak to a resident on a one to one basis that if he is taking drugs on the premises he will lose his right to stay at the hostel and as a consequence be evicted. This will hopefully protect himself from using drugs and also protect other drug dependent residents who want to become clean with their addiction, to falling back into old habits. We also help in a way that we give medical advice and medicaments to residents in collusion with medical staff. One incident happen not a long time ago where a white resident went into the lift and just as the lift doors were closing another four black residents jumped in. He then got out of the lift and soon as the lift went up he complained to me that he could not go with â€Å"these† residents in the same lift. I asked why, and he responded â€Å"you know what these black are alike†. I said no and asked him the same question but he refused to explain to me â€Å"why†. It was in my view a certain racist behaviour. But he was not racist verbally (he has not spoken out what he really meant by this), so there was nothing I could do except speak to him and let him know that the black residents may see this as racist act and it might be hurting them. Another incident involved myself with one of the residents making Nazi-salutes at one day and on the next giving head butting signs. At this occasion an incident report was made and the resident being giving immediately notice to leave within 24 hours. When I encounter any racism, discrimination or disadvantage I pull the resident by side or take him to the interview room and have a word with him. Depending how severe the incident was I have to write an incident report and this goes than to the team-leader or manager who than decides what action are be taken. Our hostel policy states no person will be treated less favourably than any other person because of their race, colour, ethnic or national origin, appearance, gender, sexuality, marital status, physical disability, health status, age, religious, spiritual or political beliefs or offending history (Ref. Bridge Housing Association, Equal Opportunities Policy). A lot of people say HIV/Aids is a homosexual disease. If I have a homosexual resident at the hostel and can not stigmatise them by saying all homosexuals must have aids and treat him in a totally different manner then anyone else. Also a lot of people assume that alcoholics talk a lot of rubbish, is not very coherent, falls all over the place and looks shabby. If I deal now with an alcoholic who have these appearance I could automatically assume there is no point for me really to try to deal with this person because he do not know what I'm talking about anyway. The drink has got to him and because of the problems I may associate with alcoholism I could treat them all in the same way. With this attitude and thinking he is not worth my time because he would not remember anyway what I'm talking about I would just do enough (paperwork) without giving him the help he might really need. When a resident is totally drunk I give a cup of coffee or support him to his bedroom where he can sleep for a while to get sober. When he is in a state where I can talk to him I will do so he in private with no other residents present. Just because the person does have an alcohol dependency I do not treat him as that. I treat him as a normal individual and treat him in a way that if I would be an alcoholic, the way I would like to be treated. To have values is a good thing because at enables you to set goals for yourself and to achieve objectives. But there is also a down side where other people values can come into conflict with my own.

To what extent does the portrayal of women in Much Ado About Nothing subvert the conventions of the society shown in the play?

Freedom for women in the patriarchal society, in which the play is set, appears controlled and constrained in ‘Much Ado About Nothing (MAAN)’. Shakespeare employs the rebellious spirit of Beatrice in his comedy to subvert the social orthodoxy of the Elizabethan era. Hero falls victim to the suppressive nature of the dominating male characters; however Beatrice, our shrew, provides humour with her quick wit and wordplay, and a breath of fresh air for a modern feminist audience. The dramatic genre of comedy is often subversive and ‘MAAN’ definitely does not fail to live up to this expectation. With her opening line, our female protagonist subverts conventional stereotypes as she interrupts a conversation between two male speakers, questioning the return of â€Å"Signior Mountanto†. Instantly this informs us of her subversive lack of etiquette in conversation, as women would not typically speak out for themselves, especially not against a man. Her wordplay and double entendre here invokes humour firstly because the name relates to an up thrust in duelling, thus describing Benedick as a show-off, and secondly because it has sexual connotations. Beatrice’s outward smutty nature can be marked in juxtaposition to Hero’s lack of independence and confidence (a woman who occupies the role of a tragic heroine, rather than a comic one, barely utters a word throughout the play, and succumbs totally to the homosocial ruling class of Messina). Behind her witty exterior, and her constant determination not to be seen as weak, Beatrice can be seen as inquisitive about Benedick’s time away, showing she cares for him; this would conform to Renaissance standards for it was anticipated that all women would fall into the arms of a man. Being a standard feature of romantic comedy, the female protagonist typically begins by hating the man she loves, mirroring the structural pattern of beginning in discord and ending in accord. Furthermore, Beatrice, the stock character of the shrew, is exposed as a woman whose opinion of marriage definitely subverts the status quo. Asserting that she will not marry â€Å"till God make men of some other metal than earth†, her unconventionality of not wanting a husband can be seen explicitly. An Elizabethan audience could deem this to be impractical and absurd; however a contemporary feminist critic may praise her for her independence. Most noteworthy perhaps, is when she says she will â€Å"cry â€Å"Heigh-ho for a husband! †Ã¢â‚¬  illustrating that the fact she is without a lover bothers her more than we may have assumed previously. Consequently, she initiates an impetuous proposal from Don Pedro which is fascinating as we are left unsure as to whether it was merely a jest or actually sincere – this confusion and chaos being predictable of a comedy. In my opinion the proposal was sincere as Don Pedro is left unhappy at the end of the joyous comedy: â€Å"Prince, thou art sad; get thee a wife†. Although, staying true to her word, Beatrice turns down the offer, on the basis that his â€Å"Grace is too costly to wear every day. † But there is dramatic irony in this; it is evident that she does not want a husband, so the audience is fully aware that the plot will alter in due time, ending in a married Beatrice. Again, this is conventional of a romantic comedy, where the female heroine will ultimately revise her original opinion of the man. Additionally, Beatrice’s discontent with the lack of respect and regard she receives as a woman manifests itself in her wish that she was a man. Beatrice is clearly aware of her inability to act against Claudio (purely because of her gender), after he shuns Hero at the altar. Beatrice declares â€Å"O God, that I were a man! I would eat his heart in the market place! † The metaphor used here creates an image of a savage and ruthless Beatrice (implying she would kill Claudio, rip his heart out and then eat it); traits which definitely are not associated with the conservative women of the Elizabethan era. However, some may deem her subversion of the gender roles here as positively defiant. Although verbally expressing her anguish, Beatrice â€Å"too, in this patriarchal society, must be dependent on a man to make right prevail†, as Penny Gay says, and this disheartens the audience. Thus, Beatrice turns to a man to carry out her wish for her: â€Å"Come, bid me do anything for thee. † Also note Benedick’s reaction to this request; he succumbs to Beatrice’s influence, and in consequence reverses the established gender roles in Renaissance society. The consistent sexual innuendo Beatrice insinuates in her speech is undeniably subversive. Bawdy language, not generally used by young, conventional women, presents Beatrice as characteristically more masculine than feminine: â€Å"With a good leg and a good foot, uncle†. There is a sexual pun on the word â€Å"foot†, perhaps linking to the unmannerly French ‘foutre’, as to suggest an adept lover during copulation – women having openly sexual desires during Elizabethan times was very distasteful, making the comment even more significant. It is also vital to note Leonato’s response to such language stating to â€Å"be so shrewd of thy tongue† â€Å"wilt never get thee a husband†, as if almost presuming Beatrice aspires to be wedded and oppressed. Moreover, deception and mistaken identity, features typical of comedy, allow Beatrice to subvert the status quo even further when she has the upper hand on Benedick, at the masked ball. The humour present is in the dramatic irony that Benedick is unaware that she knows who he is; he feels he is at an advantage by being able to hear what Beatrice ‘thinks about him’. Yet, it is Beatrice who is truly at an advantage, for she can in fact balance the power between the sexes, by ‘indirectly’ insulting Benedick, the â€Å"very dull fool†. Not only is the use of disguise a catalyst for humour, but Beatrice’s, debatably, greater intelligence challenges the conventional view that men are superior to women in every aspect. However, the structure of ‘MAAN’ enables the reader to recognise the chronological downfall of Beatrice’s wild spirit and liberation. The ending, with its characteristic comic resolution of marriage, also sees Beatrice being silenced by Benedick, significantly on the day of their wedding. The literal kiss, used to cease her independence, is preceded by the imperative â€Å"Peace! I will stop your mouth. † The fact that the feisty Beatrice is letting herself be silenced, which is marked in stark contrast to the â€Å"rare parrot-teacher† we met at the beginning of the play, demonstrates the restrictive nature of marriage for women. The timing of the kiss, right at the end of the play, gives a lasting feeling that Beatrice will stay submissive to her husband after the play ends. As Jacob Lund argues â€Å"the marriage of Beatrice and Benedick seems at first to offer a different view of what constitutes social order in the world of the play† with their repartee and Beatrice’s confidence, seen clearly when she remains contentious just before becoming a wife, stating she will â€Å"take thee for pity†. In spite of this critic’s view, I think the uniform structure of comedy, concluding with the restoration of order, means that it is only natural that Beatrice should be suppressed before long. It is clear that Shakespeare has created a realistic ending; perhaps it was too idealistic to assume Beatrice would claim superiority in the relationship? Inconsistent to Beatrice’s early assertions that she would â€Å"rather hear my dog bark at a crow than a man swear he loves me†, she suddenly appears ditsy and romantic on discovering Benedick’s love for her. Conforming to the stock character of an adoring, courtly lover she exclaims â€Å"Benedick, love on; I will requite thee† in her passionate soliloquy written in strictly formal Elizabethan iambic pentameter verse; the form giving this gulling scene a much more serious tone than the previous. The explicit parallel between the two scenes, both beset with comic deception, marks a contrast between the soliloquies of Beatrice, and her male counterpart, Benedick. In comparison to Benedick, Beatrice’s fall from disdain has less of a dramatic impact, accentuating her sincerity and glee, whereas Benedick has to give himself reasons to requite her love, and consider how others will react. This undoubtedly presents Beatrice as the feebler and more vulnerable of the sexes. There is now even more of an inevitability surrounding her imminent submission to a controlling husband, as she tames â€Å"my wild heart to thy loving hand† just as she was expected to do. A feminist critic would argue that the play’s heroine has just sold out to tradition by adhering to a life of matrimony. This scene is hyperbolic in the 1993 Kenneth Branagh film version, and Josie Rourke's production of the Shakespearean comedy. This adds great comic effect as Beatrice cries out her love in an over exaggerated and quixotic fashion; arguably too extravagant? The view that some of the comic heroines in ‘MAAN’ may fall into the typical portrayal of women as passive and compliant, has some credibility. However, the unconventional wit and defiance of Beatrice outweighs the previous statement, and provides exactly what a comedy is made for: humour. It is arguable that the play ends badly from a feminist critic’s point of view as social order and the expected position of the sexes is restored (just as is anticipated, due to the comic structure). Nevertheless, mocking, transgressing and subverting the status quo will always be at the very heart of comedy, and ‘MAAN’ corresponds totally to this notion, especially in its depiction of the unforgettable character, Beatrice.

Notes of Commercial Law

Contracts (C3, pg 58) |Nature of contract |- Legal relationship consisting of the right and promises constituting an agreement between the parties that give each party a legal | | |duty to the other and also the right to seek for breach of those duties | | |- Consensus ad idem (meeting of minds); what the parties agree on must be clear and unambiguous and parties must be ad idem. | |Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man (2006) , | | |T2 Networks Pte Ltd v Nasioncom Sdn Bhd (2008) | |Types of Contracts | Oral contracts | | |Written contract provides evidence of the parties’ contractual obligations. | |Forefront Medical Technology (Pte) Ltd v Modern-Pak Pte Ltd (2006) | | |Parol evidence rule = oral evidence not admissible to add to, vary, amend or contradict written contract s 93-94 Evidence Act (refer | | |to Terms) | | |Engelin Teh Practice LLC v Wee Soon Kim Anthony (2004) | . Offer (C3, pg 63) |As the expression to another of a willingness to be bound by stated terms. | |Invitation to treat (pg 64) | |An invitation to others to enter into a negotiation which may eventually lead to the making of an offer. | |An ad is view as invitations to treat. | |Auction without reservations (refer to Barry v Davis (2000) pg 5) |(Offer = Bids made by audience, Acceptance = Auctioneer indicates bids accepted) | |Display of Goods | |Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd (1952) the court held that the display of goods with prices constitutes an | |invitation to treat. The offer is only made when a customer selects the item he wants and brings it to the cashier to pay for it. |Reaffirmed by Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong & Others v Digilandmall com Pte Ltd (2004) | |Advertisements An ad is view as invitations to treat. | |Partridge v Crittenden (1968) | |Provision of Information | |Harvey v Facey (1893) – The court held that there was no contract because provision of information was not an offer .Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean | |(1880) – Seeking for more information is neither a rejection nor acceptance, it was merely an enquiry. | |*compare between offer and invitation to treat, must prove why choose one over the other | |Specific Offeree |An offer is an expression made by one party to another party. For an offer to be effective, the offer must be communicated to the | | |offeree. | Unilateral Contracts |A contract brought into existence by the act of one party in response to a conditional promise by another. Harvela Investments Ltd v | |(involving only one |Royal Trust Co of Canada (Cl) Ltd & Ors (1984)No exchange of promise, only 1 promise (made by offeror). | |side) |Offeree makes no promise, only performs conditions attached to offeror’s promise. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) – Where | |(pg 63) |advertisement contains a promise in return for an act, an offer is intended. (No general rule that an ad cannot be an offer. | |Bi-lateral Co ntracts |An agreement where one party makes a promise to the other party. | |(involving on 2 side |There are duties, rights and considerations on both parties. In other words, performance of the conditions is an acceptance of the | |or both) |offer and this acceptance should be notified. | Termination of Offer (Pg 75) (5 ways) |Withdrawal |Law: Offer can be withdrawn or revoked by the offeror at any time before it is accepted. (When an offer is withdrawn, the offer is said | | |to be revoked). Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v Turegum Insurance Co (2001) | | |Law: Withdrawal must be communicated to offeree (Revocation is only effective when the offeree receives notice of the revocation) Byrne | | |v Van Tienhoven (1880) – It was held that the revocation was not effective until it was received by the plaintiff. Since the offer was | | |accepted prior to the revocation, there was a valid contract. | |Law: Revocation of offer can be communicated by a third party (as long as offeree obtains knowledge of the revocation) (must be a | | |reliable and trustworthy source) Dickinson v Dodds (1876) Law: Fresh Offer (Revocation can also occer if the offer is replaced by a | | |fresh offer) Ban Paribas v Citibank NA (1989) | | |Law: Offer is opened for a fixed period Routledge v Grant (1828) –Rationale is that an offeree cannot enforce an offeror’s promise to | | |keep his offer open unless there is separate contract supported by consideration to do so, such contracts are called options – Tay Joo | | |Sing v Ku Yu Sang – essentially a promise, supported by consideration, to keep an offer open for a specific period of time within which | | |to decide whether or not to enter into the purchase of agreement. | | |Law: Unilateral Contracts Abbot v Lance (1860), it was held that the offeror cannot withdraw his offer once the offeree has started to | | |act. – Dickson Trading(s) Pte Ltd v Transmarco Ltd (1989), obiter dictum, the offeror in a unilateral contract has an obligation not to | | |revoke the offer after the offeree has involved in the performance of the conditions. |Lapse of time |Acceptance after specific period which offeror states that his offer is open = Ineffective | | |If the offer is opened for a specified period, a purported acceptance after that period would not be effective since the offer had | | |lapsed. the court may imply that the offeror has specified the period of offer even if he has not done so expressly. Wee Ah Lian v Teo | | |Siak Weng (1992) | | |- however, if it is clear from the offeror’s conduct and other evidence that the terms of the supposedly lapsed offer continue to govern| | |their relationship after the specified period, then it is still valid and acceptable after the deadline. Panwell Pte Ltd & Anor v | | |Indian Bank (No2) (2002) | | |When no specified period of time is expressed, an offer would lapse after a reasonable amount of time, (depending on the facts of the | | |case). Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co v Montefiore (1866) – the court held that Montefiore could refuse to take up the shares because his | | |offer had lapsed after a reasonable time. | |Failure of |Offer automatically terminated if condition not met | |Condition |An offer may terminate on the occurrence of a specified event if the offer is subjected to the condition that it will do. e. g. erminate| | |if goods are damaged before acceptance, subject to the approval of my lawyer Financings Ltd v Stimson (1962) | |Death |Dickinson v Dodds( if the man who makes an offer dies, the offer cannot be accepted after he is dead. Reynolds v Atherton (1921)( | | |Offeree dies before acceptance, this offer cease to be capable of acceptance. Bradbury v Morgan (1862)( the court held that the death of| | |an offeror did not terminate the offer unless the offeree had notice of the offeror’s death. | 2. Acceptance (C3, pg 67) |Indication by the offeree of his consent to the offer and his intention to form a contract based on the exact terms of the offer | |- Whatever its form, a communication constitutes acceptance only if it is an unconditional expression of assent to the terms of offer.Compaq Computer Asia| |Pte Ltd v Computer Interface(s) Pte Ltd (2004) | |- Conditional Acceptance is treated as no acceptance. Struttgart Auto Pte Ltd v Ng Shwu Yong (2005); | |- Accepts seller’s offer subject to a written contract drafted – Thmoas Plaza (Pte) Ltd v Liquidators of Yaohan Departmental Store Singapore Pte Ltd (in | |liquidation) (2001); | |- Agreenment shall not be final and binding agreement – Cendekia Candranegara Tjiang v Yin Kum Choy & Others (2002) | |Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. 1877) The Court held that the facts and actual conduct of the parties, established the existence of a contract, and | |there having a clear breach of it, Brogden must be held liable upon it. | |Law: Acceptance of unilateral contract is when all the terms o f the contract are fully performed Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) | |Counter |Offeree introduces a new term or varies the terms of an offer (original offeror is free to accept or reject the â€Å"counter offer†) Hyde v Wrench | |Offer |(1840) – The court held that there was no contract because Hyde’s reply was a counter offer which extinguished the earlier offer.When the | | |response is an inquiry or a request of information, it should not be construed as an offer | |Knowledge|Law: Offeree cannot accept in ignorance of the law | |of Offer |offeree must be aware of the offer – Fitch v Snedaker (1868) and R v Clarke (1927) – As long as offeree has knowledge of offer, motive is | | |irrelevant. Once the offeree is aware of the offer, it does not matter that he was prompted to act for reasons other than the desire to accept | | |the offer.William v Carwardine (1833) – the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a reward, she ha d done so with knowledge of the reward| | |even though her motive for giving the information was her own remorse. | | |Cross-offer: Do not constitute to agreement/contract; lack of consensus / meeting of minds between parties at the time of making offer. – Tinn v | | |Hoffman & Co (1873) | |Communica|General Rule: Acceptance must be communicated (Acceptance must actually be received by the offeror) | |tion of |Acceptance effective when communicated/received by offeror. | |Acceptanc|If in writing, it must be physically received by the offeror, and if orally, heard by the offeror. Acceptance must be unconditional and absolute. |e |obiter dictum in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation (1955) and CS Bored Pile System Pte Ltd v Evan Lam &Co Pte Ltd (2006) | | |Powell v Lee (1908) Held that there was no authorized communication of intention to contract on part of the body hence no contract. | |Silence |Silence is only a form of acceptance if both parties agree to it. Silence o f the offeree would not constitute a valid acceptance | | |Felthouse v Bindley (1862)–held that there was no contract between the two parties. The plaintiff had no right to impose a condition that a sale | | |contract would come into existence if the defendant remained silent. | |Exemption case: Both parties agree that the offeree would have a positive obligation to communication only if he wished to reject the offer. | | |Albeit rare in practice, silence is properly be construed as acceptance – Southern Ocean Shipbuilding Co Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG (1993) and | | |Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte Ltd (2004) – defendant’s conduct of paying the reduced rent showed that a contact exists. | |Instantan|Time of acceptance is the time at which the acceptance is communicated to the offeror | |eous |Ithe acceptance will take effect when and where it is received, acceptance must be absolute and unconditional Entores v Miles Far East Corp | Communica|(1955) | |tions |- if got designated info system; receipt when e-record entered the designated info system. Emails, Fax, Telex | | |- if got designated info system but sent elsewhere then is receipt upon retrieval. | | |- if no designated info system; receipt upon entering any info system of addressee. | |Exception|The Postal Rule (ONLY FOR LETTERS OF ACCEPTANCE! ) | |s |- Quenerduaine v Cole (1883) – telegram means speedy reply; not attracted by postal rule.Offeror will claim that it is only valid acceptance | | |when physically received. | | |- Agreement cannot be withdrawn once the post is sent out. Henthorn v Fraser (1892) | | |- Acceptance deemed effective as soon as the letter is posted regardless as to when it reaches the offeror or whether it reaches him at all. | | |Adams v Lindsell (1818) | | |- the court held that the acceptance was communicated and the contract was formed as soon as the plaintiff posted the acceptance letter. Lee | | |Seng Heng v Guard ian Assurance CO Ltd (1932) | | |Waiver of Communication: facts show that the offeror has waived the need for communiation of acceptance; when offer made to whole world | | |(unilateral contract; anyone can accept) – Calill v Carbolic Smoke Ball. | | |( the doing of the act by the offeree may itself be constructed as acceptance, without requiring formal communication to the offeror. | | |Termination of acceptance: Once posted, an acceptance cannot be revoked. – Wenkheim v Arndt (1873) | 3. Consideration (C4, Pg 85) Two Main Rules on Consideration Must move from promisee but need not move to promisor.Tweedle v Atkinson (1861) Need not be adequate but must be sufficient. Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) |Is what each party gives to the other as the agreed price for the other’s promise | |Detriment to one OR Benefit to another | |But it need not move to the promisor Malayan Banking Bhd v Lauw Wisanggeni – A third party who is a stranger to the contra ct may benefit from the contract | |although he may not enforce it. | |Need not be adequate but must be sufficient – Law will not interfere with parties contract so long as consideration is of â€Å"some value† in the eyes of the | |law. |In order for a promise to be enforceable in court, consideration must first be given (exchange of promises would be sufficient consideration)– Dunlop v | |Selfridge (1915) | |Past Consideration is |Refers to an act performed prior to and to that extent independent of, the promises being exchanged (act performed without the | |not valid |reciprocal promise in mind). | | |Past consideration is no consideration The court held that the promise was made after the transaction had already been concluded | | |and therefore past consideration.Roscorla v Thomas (1842) and Teo Song Kwang (alias Richard) v Gnau Lye Chan and Another (2006) | | |To become executed consideration: – Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) and Sim Tony v Ah Ghee (t /a Phil Real Estate &Building Services) | | |(1995) | | |Act done at promisor’s request If the promisor has previously asked the other party to provide goods or services, then a promise | | |made after they are provided will be treated as binding. | | |Contract must otherwise be enforceable Done in biz context and it is clearly understood by both sides that it will be paid for then| | |valid.Re Caseys’s Patent v Casey (1892) held the request to Casey to manage the patent carried an implied promise to pay for that | | |service, hence it was enforceable. | |Consideration must move|The only person who can sue for breach of contract must be the party who has given consideration (promise) – Tweedle v Atkinson | |from the promisee |(1861) – the court held that Tweedle could not enforce the contract between the two fathers because firstly he is not a party of | | |the contract, and secondly, no consideration flowed from him. | | |Consideration need not move to the promisor; 3rd party can may benefit although may not enforce it. Malayan Banking Bhd v Lauw | | |Wisanggeni | |Sufficient, |- Law will not inquire to the fairness of consideration, as long as the parties agree to it willingly – Lam Hong Leong Aluminium | |Need not be Adequate; |Pte Ltd v Lian Teck Huat Consruction Pte Ltd and Another (2003) | |Adequacy of |- Law does not measure value (once the subject of exchange is recognized in law as suitable consideration, quantity is irrelevant) | |Consideration |- Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprise Pte Ltd v Navalmar UK Ltd (No2) (2003) and Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) –the | | |consideration included the wrappers even though they were of no value to Nestle. | | |Thomas v Thomas (1842) – The court held that the nominal rent was sufficient consideration but the husband’s wishes were | | |irrelevant; motive is not the same thing as consideration. |Sufficiency of |A promise not to enforce a Claim is Good Consideration Promise not to sue or enforce a valid claim or settlement of legal action = | |Consideration |sufficient consideration Lam Hong Leong Aluminium Pte Ltd v Lian Teck Huat Consruction Pte Ltd and Another (2003) and Alliance Bank| | |Ltd v Broom (1864) Normally, banks would not promise to enforce debt but is not done here. For not suing, considerations shown ( | | |binding agreement to provide security. | |Sufficient |Forbearance to sue |A promise to forbear from suing or enforcing a valid claim can constitute sufficient or valuable | | | |consideration. Alliance Bank Ltd v Broom (1864).K-Rex Finance Ltd v Cheng Chih Cheng (1993) – The court | | | |spoke the words of Cockburn CJ in Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1870). | | | |The same applies to a compromise of a legal action. The req. is that the legal action must be reasonable and| | | |not frivolous, that the claimant has an honest belief that in the chance of success of the claim and that | | | |the claimant h as not concealed from the other party any fact which, to the claimant’s knowledge, might | | | |affect its validity.Miles v New Zealand Alford Estate Co (1886) | | |Performance of |The Eurymedon (1975) – The Privy Council held that even though the defendant was already contractually bound| | |existing contractual |to a third party to do so, the defendant’s act of unloading the ship formed good consideration for the | | |duty to third party |contract with the plaintiff. This was also clarified in Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) by the HOL. This was | | | |also accepted in the Singapore High Court in SSAB Oxelosund AB v Xendral Trading Pte Ltd (1992). | |Moral obligation & |Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) – The court rejected the plaintiff’s view and held that moral obligation is | | |motives |insufficient consideration for a fresh promise. | |Insufficient |Vague or insubstantial|White v Bluett (1853) – The court held that Bluett’s promise was no thing more than a promise â€Å"not to bore | | |consideration |his father†. As such it was too vague(fake) and was insufficient consideration for the alleged discharge by | | | |his father. | | |Performance of |Collins v Godefroy (1831) –Performance of an existing public duty is not valid consideration. | |existing public duty |Glassbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan City Council (1925)- If the court finds the promisee did something more that| | | |required by an existing public duty, then it may be sufficient. | | |Performance of |Stilk v Myrick (1809) – It was held that there was no consideration for the captain’s promise because the | | |existing contractual |remaining crew did what they were contractually required. Two sailors deserting were within the usual | | |duty |emergencies found in such a voyage. | | |However, if it is more than what is contractually required, that may constitute good consideration – Hartley| | | |v Ponsonby (1857) and William s v Roffey Bros (1991) – The English Court of Appeal held that as long as the | | | |extra payment was not given under duress or fraud, the oral promise was enforceable because the defendant | | | |obtained â€Å"practical benefits† from the plaintiff’s work. The benefit was that they would not be liable under| | | |the main contract for late completion. | | |Rule in Pinnel’s Case |Pinnel’s case is authority for the proposition that payment of a lesser sum without anything extra is not a | | | |good consideration. | | |- It would be good consideration provided with a gift (can be anything, even time) is given as the gift | | | |might be more beneficial than the money. -But if the person asks me pay lesser, then cannot sue. – If I | | | |accepted a smaller amount, after that I decided to sue again, CAN! Provided no gift! | | | |Pinnel’s Case (1602) – The part payment of a debt does not discharge the entire debt unless the part p ayment| | | |was made at the request of the creditor and the payment was made earlier, at a different place, or in | | | |conjunction with some other valuable consideration.Foakes v Beer (1884) affirmed Pinnel’s Case – the HOL | | | |held that Beer’s promise not to take further action was not supported by consideration. She could claim the | | | |money. ( in Euro-Asia Realty Pte Ltd v Mayfair Investment Pte Ltd (2001), District Court in Singapore | | | |endorsed the rule in Foakes v Beer and held favor in creditor. | | |Promissory Estoppel is an equitable doctrine whose origin may be traced to Lord Cairns in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877). | | |When p. e. is established, the court may enforce a promise despite the fact that there was no consideration. Central London | | |Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd (1947) | | |Elements (Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd (1947) and D&C Builders v Rees (1966)) | | |1)Parties must have existin g legal relationship 2)Clear and unequivocal promise which affects the legal relationship 3)Promisee | | |relied upon promise and altered his position 4)Inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise. | |Promissory Estoppel |Cause of action | |(For no consideration) |When the promisor gives reasonable notice of his intention to revert to the original legal relationship, the original relationship | | |is restored. The effect of p. e. is to suspend promisor’s rights temporarily.Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co| | |Ltd (1995) However, the promise could become ‘final and irrevocable if the promisee cannot resume his position. † Ajayi v R T | | |Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd (1964) | | |A defensive tool | | |This means that it can only be raised as a shield and not a sword, i. e. a defense against a claim and not to commence a suit.Combe| | |v Combe (1951) (people sue you then can use ) Assoland Construction Pte Ltd v Malayan Credit Properties Pt e Ltd (1993) and Lai Yew | | |Tay Pte Ltd v Pilecon Engineering BHd (2002) | | | | 4. Intention to Create Legal Relations (Pg 17) |The test is whether a reasonable person viewing all the circumstances of the case would consider that the promisor intended his promise to have legal | |consequences. objective test† (objectively ascertained) | |Social and |General presumption = no legal intention | |Domestic |Balfour v Balfour (1919) and Jones v Padavatton (1969) – An agreement is not legally binding unless the parties intend that each will | |Agreements |accept the lefal consequences for its breach. Choo Tiong Hin v Choo Hock Swee (1959) – the plaintiff’s promises were not enforceable | | |because the lack of intention to create legal relations. De Cruz Andrea Heidi v Guangzhou Yuzhitang Health Products Co Ltd and Others | | |(2003) -Friend doing a favor even though secret profit or commission is earned. | |However in Merritt v Merritt (1970) and Wakeling v Ripley– The English Court of Appeal found the necessary intention and held that the | | |wife succeeded in her claim for breach of contract. | |Commercial |General presumption = Legal intention | |Agreements |- There is necessary intention to create legal relations. Edwards v Skyway Ltd (1964) – The court held that Skyways was legally bound. | | |Binding but unenforceable | | |Honour Clauses – When parties have expressly stated that their agreement is not to be legally binding. Rose &Frank Co v J R Crompton | | |&Bros Ltd (1925) | | |Exceptions (not legally binding): | | |Letter of Comfort (pg 17) ( may be binding depending on its terms | | |usually a document supplied by a 3rd party to a creditor indicating a concern to ensure that a debtor meets his obligations to the | | |creditor. | | |Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysian Mining Corporation Berhad (1989) Court only found a moral not legal obligation. refer to pg 17) | | |Letter of Intent (LOI) (pg 17) | | |A de vice by which one indicates to another of his intention to enter into a contract with him | | |E. g. a main contractor is prearing a tender and he plans to subcontract some of the work. | Privity of Contract (Pg 105) |The general rule is that no one, other than a person who is a party to the contract may be entitled to enforce or be bound by the terms of the contract. – | |Price v Easton (1833) – court held that Price could not succeed, as he was not a party to the contract between the debtor and the Easton.Management | |Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2297 v Seasons Park Ltd (2005) | |Exceptions (Thai Kenaf Co Ltd v Keck Seng (S) Pte Ltd (1993) | |Agency relationship | |Assignment of choses in action – consent of 3 parties | |Letter of Credit | |Agreement |Intention to create legal relations |Consideration | |Is it an offer? Define offer |Is there any intention? |Is it revocation? Via broadcast? | |Was the offer effectively revoked? |Is the agreement legally bind (To place under legal|Is Consideration need to be sufficient but not | |Is it valid acceptance?Communicated |obligation by contract)? |adequate? | |Third party’s conversation? |Is the agreement reached in a business context? |Promissory Estoppel? Talk about the elements, sword| |Postal rude? |(eg. Family, friends) |or shield? | |Is there any provision of information? |Is it (social and domestic) or commercial |Is the consideration moved from promisee? | |Any counter offer? |agreement? | | |Is the offeree aware of offer with motive? | | | |Is the offer lapse? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Notes of Commercial Law Contracts (C3, pg 58) |Nature of contract |- Legal relationship consisting of the right and promises constituting an agreement between the parties that give each party a legal | | |duty to the other and also the right to seek for breach of those duties | | |- Consensus ad idem (meeting of minds); what the parties agree on must be clear and unambiguous and parties must be ad idem. | |Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man (2006) , | | |T2 Networks Pte Ltd v Nasioncom Sdn Bhd (2008) | |Types of Contracts | Oral contracts | | |Written contract provides evidence of the parties’ contractual obligations. | |Forefront Medical Technology (Pte) Ltd v Modern-Pak Pte Ltd (2006) | | |Parol evidence rule = oral evidence not admissible to add to, vary, amend or contradict written contract s 93-94 Evidence Act (refer | | |to Terms) | | |Engelin Teh Practice LLC v Wee Soon Kim Anthony (2004) | . Offer (C3, pg 63) |As the expression to another of a willingness to be bound by stated terms. | |Invitation to treat (pg 64) | |An invitation to others to enter into a negotiation which may eventually lead to the making of an offer. | |An ad is view as invitations to treat. | |Auction without reservations (refer to Barry v Davis (2000) pg 5) |(Offer = Bids made by audience, Acceptance = Auctioneer indicates bids accepted) | |Display of Goods | |Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd (1952) the court held that the display of goods with prices constitutes an | |invitation to treat. The offer is only made when a customer selects the item he wants and brings it to the cashier to pay for it. |Reaffirmed by Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong & Others v Digilandmall com Pte Ltd (2004) | |Advertisements An ad is view as invitations to treat. | |Partridge v Crittenden (1968) | |Provision of Information | |Harvey v Facey (1893) – The court held that there was no contract because provision of information was not an offer .Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean | |(1880) – Seeking for more information is neither a rejection nor acceptance, it was merely an enquiry. | |*compare between offer and invitation to treat, must prove why choose one over the other | |Specific Offeree |An offer is an expression made by one party to another party. For an offer to be effective, the offer must be communicated to the | | |offeree. | Unilateral Contracts |A contract brought into existence by the act of one party in response to a conditional promise by another. Harvela Investments Ltd v | |(involving only one |Royal Trust Co of Canada (Cl) Ltd & Ors (1984)No exchange of promise, only 1 promise (made by offeror). | |side) |Offeree makes no promise, only performs conditions attached to offeror’s promise. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) – Where | |(pg 63) |advertisement contains a promise in return for an act, an offer is intended. (No general rule that an ad cannot be an offer. | |Bi-lateral Co ntracts |An agreement where one party makes a promise to the other party. | |(involving on 2 side |There are duties, rights and considerations on both parties. In other words, performance of the conditions is an acceptance of the | |or both) |offer and this acceptance should be notified. | Termination of Offer (Pg 75) (5 ways) |Withdrawal |Law: Offer can be withdrawn or revoked by the offeror at any time before it is accepted. (When an offer is withdrawn, the offer is said | | |to be revoked). Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v Turegum Insurance Co (2001) | | |Law: Withdrawal must be communicated to offeree (Revocation is only effective when the offeree receives notice of the revocation) Byrne | | |v Van Tienhoven (1880) – It was held that the revocation was not effective until it was received by the plaintiff. Since the offer was | | |accepted prior to the revocation, there was a valid contract. | |Law: Revocation of offer can be communicated by a third party (as long as offeree obtains knowledge of the revocation) (must be a | | |reliable and trustworthy source) Dickinson v Dodds (1876) Law: Fresh Offer (Revocation can also occer if the offer is replaced by a | | |fresh offer) Ban Paribas v Citibank NA (1989) | | |Law: Offer is opened for a fixed period Routledge v Grant (1828) –Rationale is that an offeree cannot enforce an offeror’s promise to | | |keep his offer open unless there is separate contract supported by consideration to do so, such contracts are called options – Tay Joo | | |Sing v Ku Yu Sang – essentially a promise, supported by consideration, to keep an offer open for a specific period of time within which | | |to decide whether or not to enter into the purchase of agreement. | | |Law: Unilateral Contracts Abbot v Lance (1860), it was held that the offeror cannot withdraw his offer once the offeree has started to | | |act. – Dickson Trading(s) Pte Ltd v Transmarco Ltd (1989), obiter dictum, the offeror in a unilateral contract has an obligation not to | | |revoke the offer after the offeree has involved in the performance of the conditions. |Lapse of time |Acceptance after specific period which offeror states that his offer is open = Ineffective | | |If the offer is opened for a specified period, a purported acceptance after that period would not be effective since the offer had | | |lapsed. the court may imply that the offeror has specified the period of offer even if he has not done so expressly. Wee Ah Lian v Teo | | |Siak Weng (1992) | | |- however, if it is clear from the offeror’s conduct and other evidence that the terms of the supposedly lapsed offer continue to govern| | |their relationship after the specified period, then it is still valid and acceptable after the deadline. Panwell Pte Ltd & Anor v | | |Indian Bank (No2) (2002) | | |When no specified period of time is expressed, an offer would lapse after a reasonable amount of time, (depending on the facts of the | | |case). Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co v Montefiore (1866) – the court held that Montefiore could refuse to take up the shares because his | | |offer had lapsed after a reasonable time. | |Failure of |Offer automatically terminated if condition not met | |Condition |An offer may terminate on the occurrence of a specified event if the offer is subjected to the condition that it will do. e. g. erminate| | |if goods are damaged before acceptance, subject to the approval of my lawyer Financings Ltd v Stimson (1962) | |Death |Dickinson v Dodds( if the man who makes an offer dies, the offer cannot be accepted after he is dead. Reynolds v Atherton (1921)( | | |Offeree dies before acceptance, this offer cease to be capable of acceptance. Bradbury v Morgan (1862)( the court held that the death of| | |an offeror did not terminate the offer unless the offeree had notice of the offeror’s death. | 2. Acceptance (C3, pg 67) |Indication by the offeree of his consent to the offer and his intention to form a contract based on the exact terms of the offer | |- Whatever its form, a communication constitutes acceptance only if it is an unconditional expression of assent to the terms of offer.Compaq Computer Asia| |Pte Ltd v Computer Interface(s) Pte Ltd (2004) | |- Conditional Acceptance is treated as no acceptance. Struttgart Auto Pte Ltd v Ng Shwu Yong (2005); | |- Accepts seller’s offer subject to a written contract drafted – Thmoas Plaza (Pte) Ltd v Liquidators of Yaohan Departmental Store Singapore Pte Ltd (in | |liquidation) (2001); | |- Agreenment shall not be final and binding agreement – Cendekia Candranegara Tjiang v Yin Kum Choy & Others (2002) | |Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. 1877) The Court held that the facts and actual conduct of the parties, established the existence of a contract, and | |there having a clear breach of it, Brogden must be held liable upon it. | |Law: Acceptance of unilateral contract is when all the terms o f the contract are fully performed Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) | |Counter |Offeree introduces a new term or varies the terms of an offer (original offeror is free to accept or reject the â€Å"counter offer†) Hyde v Wrench | |Offer |(1840) – The court held that there was no contract because Hyde’s reply was a counter offer which extinguished the earlier offer.When the | | |response is an inquiry or a request of information, it should not be construed as an offer | |Knowledge|Law: Offeree cannot accept in ignorance of the law | |of Offer |offeree must be aware of the offer – Fitch v Snedaker (1868) and R v Clarke (1927) – As long as offeree has knowledge of offer, motive is | | |irrelevant. Once the offeree is aware of the offer, it does not matter that he was prompted to act for reasons other than the desire to accept | | |the offer.William v Carwardine (1833) – the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a reward, she ha d done so with knowledge of the reward| | |even though her motive for giving the information was her own remorse. | | |Cross-offer: Do not constitute to agreement/contract; lack of consensus / meeting of minds between parties at the time of making offer. – Tinn v | | |Hoffman & Co (1873) | |Communica|General Rule: Acceptance must be communicated (Acceptance must actually be received by the offeror) | |tion of |Acceptance effective when communicated/received by offeror. | |Acceptanc|If in writing, it must be physically received by the offeror, and if orally, heard by the offeror. Acceptance must be unconditional and absolute. |e |obiter dictum in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation (1955) and CS Bored Pile System Pte Ltd v Evan Lam &Co Pte Ltd (2006) | | |Powell v Lee (1908) Held that there was no authorized communication of intention to contract on part of the body hence no contract. | |Silence |Silence is only a form of acceptance if both parties agree to it. Silence o f the offeree would not constitute a valid acceptance | | |Felthouse v Bindley (1862)–held that there was no contract between the two parties. The plaintiff had no right to impose a condition that a sale | | |contract would come into existence if the defendant remained silent. | |Exemption case: Both parties agree that the offeree would have a positive obligation to communication only if he wished to reject the offer. | | |Albeit rare in practice, silence is properly be construed as acceptance – Southern Ocean Shipbuilding Co Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG (1993) and | | |Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte Ltd (2004) – defendant’s conduct of paying the reduced rent showed that a contact exists. | |Instantan|Time of acceptance is the time at which the acceptance is communicated to the offeror | |eous |Ithe acceptance will take effect when and where it is received, acceptance must be absolute and unconditional Entores v Miles Far East Corp | Communica|(1955) | |tions |- if got designated info system; receipt when e-record entered the designated info system. Emails, Fax, Telex | | |- if got designated info system but sent elsewhere then is receipt upon retrieval. | | |- if no designated info system; receipt upon entering any info system of addressee. | |Exception|The Postal Rule (ONLY FOR LETTERS OF ACCEPTANCE! ) | |s |- Quenerduaine v Cole (1883) – telegram means speedy reply; not attracted by postal rule.Offeror will claim that it is only valid acceptance | | |when physically received. | | |- Agreement cannot be withdrawn once the post is sent out. Henthorn v Fraser (1892) | | |- Acceptance deemed effective as soon as the letter is posted regardless as to when it reaches the offeror or whether it reaches him at all. | | |Adams v Lindsell (1818) | | |- the court held that the acceptance was communicated and the contract was formed as soon as the plaintiff posted the acceptance letter. Lee | | |Seng Heng v Guard ian Assurance CO Ltd (1932) | | |Waiver of Communication: facts show that the offeror has waived the need for communiation of acceptance; when offer made to whole world | | |(unilateral contract; anyone can accept) – Calill v Carbolic Smoke Ball. | | |( the doing of the act by the offeree may itself be constructed as acceptance, without requiring formal communication to the offeror. | | |Termination of acceptance: Once posted, an acceptance cannot be revoked. – Wenkheim v Arndt (1873) | 3. Consideration (C4, Pg 85) Two Main Rules on Consideration Must move from promisee but need not move to promisor.Tweedle v Atkinson (1861) Need not be adequate but must be sufficient. Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) |Is what each party gives to the other as the agreed price for the other’s promise | |Detriment to one OR Benefit to another | |But it need not move to the promisor Malayan Banking Bhd v Lauw Wisanggeni – A third party who is a stranger to the contra ct may benefit from the contract | |although he may not enforce it. | |Need not be adequate but must be sufficient – Law will not interfere with parties contract so long as consideration is of â€Å"some value† in the eyes of the | |law. |In order for a promise to be enforceable in court, consideration must first be given (exchange of promises would be sufficient consideration)– Dunlop v | |Selfridge (1915) | |Past Consideration is |Refers to an act performed prior to and to that extent independent of, the promises being exchanged (act performed without the | |not valid |reciprocal promise in mind). | | |Past consideration is no consideration The court held that the promise was made after the transaction had already been concluded | | |and therefore past consideration.Roscorla v Thomas (1842) and Teo Song Kwang (alias Richard) v Gnau Lye Chan and Another (2006) | | |To become executed consideration: – Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) and Sim Tony v Ah Ghee (t /a Phil Real Estate &Building Services) | | |(1995) | | |Act done at promisor’s request If the promisor has previously asked the other party to provide goods or services, then a promise | | |made after they are provided will be treated as binding. | | |Contract must otherwise be enforceable Done in biz context and it is clearly understood by both sides that it will be paid for then| | |valid.Re Caseys’s Patent v Casey (1892) held the request to Casey to manage the patent carried an implied promise to pay for that | | |service, hence it was enforceable. | |Consideration must move|The only person who can sue for breach of contract must be the party who has given consideration (promise) – Tweedle v Atkinson | |from the promisee |(1861) – the court held that Tweedle could not enforce the contract between the two fathers because firstly he is not a party of | | |the contract, and secondly, no consideration flowed from him. | | |Consideration need not move to the promisor; 3rd party can may benefit although may not enforce it. Malayan Banking Bhd v Lauw | | |Wisanggeni | |Sufficient, |- Law will not inquire to the fairness of consideration, as long as the parties agree to it willingly – Lam Hong Leong Aluminium | |Need not be Adequate; |Pte Ltd v Lian Teck Huat Consruction Pte Ltd and Another (2003) | |Adequacy of |- Law does not measure value (once the subject of exchange is recognized in law as suitable consideration, quantity is irrelevant) | |Consideration |- Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprise Pte Ltd v Navalmar UK Ltd (No2) (2003) and Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) –the | | |consideration included the wrappers even though they were of no value to Nestle. | | |Thomas v Thomas (1842) – The court held that the nominal rent was sufficient consideration but the husband’s wishes were | | |irrelevant; motive is not the same thing as consideration. |Sufficiency of |A promise not to enforce a Claim is Good Consideration Promise not to sue or enforce a valid claim or settlement of legal action = | |Consideration |sufficient consideration Lam Hong Leong Aluminium Pte Ltd v Lian Teck Huat Consruction Pte Ltd and Another (2003) and Alliance Bank| | |Ltd v Broom (1864) Normally, banks would not promise to enforce debt but is not done here. For not suing, considerations shown ( | | |binding agreement to provide security. | |Sufficient |Forbearance to sue |A promise to forbear from suing or enforcing a valid claim can constitute sufficient or valuable | | | |consideration. Alliance Bank Ltd v Broom (1864).K-Rex Finance Ltd v Cheng Chih Cheng (1993) – The court | | | |spoke the words of Cockburn CJ in Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1870). | | | |The same applies to a compromise of a legal action. The req. is that the legal action must be reasonable and| | | |not frivolous, that the claimant has an honest belief that in the chance of success of the claim and that | | | |the claimant h as not concealed from the other party any fact which, to the claimant’s knowledge, might | | | |affect its validity.Miles v New Zealand Alford Estate Co (1886) | | |Performance of |The Eurymedon (1975) – The Privy Council held that even though the defendant was already contractually bound| | |existing contractual |to a third party to do so, the defendant’s act of unloading the ship formed good consideration for the | | |duty to third party |contract with the plaintiff. This was also clarified in Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) by the HOL. This was | | | |also accepted in the Singapore High Court in SSAB Oxelosund AB v Xendral Trading Pte Ltd (1992). | |Moral obligation & |Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) – The court rejected the plaintiff’s view and held that moral obligation is | | |motives |insufficient consideration for a fresh promise. | |Insufficient |Vague or insubstantial|White v Bluett (1853) – The court held that Bluett’s promise was no thing more than a promise â€Å"not to bore | | |consideration |his father†. As such it was too vague(fake) and was insufficient consideration for the alleged discharge by | | | |his father. | | |Performance of |Collins v Godefroy (1831) –Performance of an existing public duty is not valid consideration. | |existing public duty |Glassbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan City Council (1925)- If the court finds the promisee did something more that| | | |required by an existing public duty, then it may be sufficient. | | |Performance of |Stilk v Myrick (1809) – It was held that there was no consideration for the captain’s promise because the | | |existing contractual |remaining crew did what they were contractually required. Two sailors deserting were within the usual | | |duty |emergencies found in such a voyage. | | |However, if it is more than what is contractually required, that may constitute good consideration – Hartley| | | |v Ponsonby (1857) and William s v Roffey Bros (1991) – The English Court of Appeal held that as long as the | | | |extra payment was not given under duress or fraud, the oral promise was enforceable because the defendant | | | |obtained â€Å"practical benefits† from the plaintiff’s work. The benefit was that they would not be liable under| | | |the main contract for late completion. | | |Rule in Pinnel’s Case |Pinnel’s case is authority for the proposition that payment of a lesser sum without anything extra is not a | | | |good consideration. | | |- It would be good consideration provided with a gift (can be anything, even time) is given as the gift | | | |might be more beneficial than the money. -But if the person asks me pay lesser, then cannot sue. – If I | | | |accepted a smaller amount, after that I decided to sue again, CAN! Provided no gift! | | | |Pinnel’s Case (1602) – The part payment of a debt does not discharge the entire debt unless the part p ayment| | | |was made at the request of the creditor and the payment was made earlier, at a different place, or in | | | |conjunction with some other valuable consideration.Foakes v Beer (1884) affirmed Pinnel’s Case – the HOL | | | |held that Beer’s promise not to take further action was not supported by consideration. She could claim the | | | |money. ( in Euro-Asia Realty Pte Ltd v Mayfair Investment Pte Ltd (2001), District Court in Singapore | | | |endorsed the rule in Foakes v Beer and held favor in creditor. | | |Promissory Estoppel is an equitable doctrine whose origin may be traced to Lord Cairns in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877). | | |When p. e. is established, the court may enforce a promise despite the fact that there was no consideration. Central London | | |Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd (1947) | | |Elements (Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd (1947) and D&C Builders v Rees (1966)) | | |1)Parties must have existin g legal relationship 2)Clear and unequivocal promise which affects the legal relationship 3)Promisee | | |relied upon promise and altered his position 4)Inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise. | |Promissory Estoppel |Cause of action | |(For no consideration) |When the promisor gives reasonable notice of his intention to revert to the original legal relationship, the original relationship | | |is restored. The effect of p. e. is to suspend promisor’s rights temporarily.Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co| | |Ltd (1995) However, the promise could become ‘final and irrevocable if the promisee cannot resume his position. † Ajayi v R T | | |Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd (1964) | | |A defensive tool | | |This means that it can only be raised as a shield and not a sword, i. e. a defense against a claim and not to commence a suit.Combe| | |v Combe (1951) (people sue you then can use ) Assoland Construction Pte Ltd v Malayan Credit Properties Pt e Ltd (1993) and Lai Yew | | |Tay Pte Ltd v Pilecon Engineering BHd (2002) | | | | 4. Intention to Create Legal Relations (Pg 17) |The test is whether a reasonable person viewing all the circumstances of the case would consider that the promisor intended his promise to have legal | |consequences. objective test† (objectively ascertained) | |Social and |General presumption = no legal intention | |Domestic |Balfour v Balfour (1919) and Jones v Padavatton (1969) – An agreement is not legally binding unless the parties intend that each will | |Agreements |accept the lefal consequences for its breach. Choo Tiong Hin v Choo Hock Swee (1959) – the plaintiff’s promises were not enforceable | | |because the lack of intention to create legal relations. De Cruz Andrea Heidi v Guangzhou Yuzhitang Health Products Co Ltd and Others | | |(2003) -Friend doing a favor even though secret profit or commission is earned. | |However in Merritt v Merritt (1970) and Wakeling v Ripley– The English Court of Appeal found the necessary intention and held that the | | |wife succeeded in her claim for breach of contract. | |Commercial |General presumption = Legal intention | |Agreements |- There is necessary intention to create legal relations. Edwards v Skyway Ltd (1964) – The court held that Skyways was legally bound. | | |Binding but unenforceable | | |Honour Clauses – When parties have expressly stated that their agreement is not to be legally binding. Rose &Frank Co v J R Crompton | | |&Bros Ltd (1925) | | |Exceptions (not legally binding): | | |Letter of Comfort (pg 17) ( may be binding depending on its terms | | |usually a document supplied by a 3rd party to a creditor indicating a concern to ensure that a debtor meets his obligations to the | | |creditor. | | |Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysian Mining Corporation Berhad (1989) Court only found a moral not legal obligation. refer to pg 17) | | |Letter of Intent (LOI) (pg 17) | | |A de vice by which one indicates to another of his intention to enter into a contract with him | | |E. g. a main contractor is prearing a tender and he plans to subcontract some of the work. | Privity of Contract (Pg 105) |The general rule is that no one, other than a person who is a party to the contract may be entitled to enforce or be bound by the terms of the contract. – | |Price v Easton (1833) – court held that Price could not succeed, as he was not a party to the contract between the debtor and the Easton.Management | |Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2297 v Seasons Park Ltd (2005) | |Exceptions (Thai Kenaf Co Ltd v Keck Seng (S) Pte Ltd (1993) | |Agency relationship | |Assignment of choses in action – consent of 3 parties | |Letter of Credit | |Agreement |Intention to create legal relations |Consideration | |Is it an offer? Define offer |Is there any intention? |Is it revocation? Via broadcast? | |Was the offer effectively revoked? |Is the agreement legally bind (To place under legal|Is Consideration need to be sufficient but not | |Is it valid acceptance?Communicated |obligation by contract)? |adequate? | |Third party’s conversation? |Is the agreement reached in a business context? |Promissory Estoppel? Talk about the elements, sword| |Postal rude? |(eg. Family, friends) |or shield? | |Is there any provision of information? |Is it (social and domestic) or commercial |Is the consideration moved from promisee? | |Any counter offer? |agreement? | | |Is the offeree aware of offer with motive? | | | |Is the offer lapse? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Organisations Learning and Development Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Organisations Learning and Development - Essay Example To help employees acquire these capabilities and to hone their existing skills, many organisations are investing heavily on learning and developmental activities, which will help in achieving changing organisational objectives. Learning and developmental activities are also employed to motivate and retain skilled and experienced employees, which will not only enhance organisational capabilities but also save costs. The present discussion is based on organisational learning and development at UK-based B&Q, a leader in do-it-yourself retail home improvement sector. B&Q is the biggest home improvement retailer in the United Kingdom and have maximum customers than any other retailer in this sector. B&Q offers more than 40,000 do-it-yourself (DIY) products, which certainly requires highly talented and skilled staff that prepares such diverse products. B&Q employs more than 25000 full time employees in their retail stores in the UK. Started in 1969 by Richard Block and David Quayle, this s tore has about 321 stores in the UK and more than 50 stores in Ireland and other countries. Apart from numerous other awards and recognitions, B&Q has been winning the Gallup Great Workplace award in 2010 for four consecutive years for highest employee engagement and productivity in the world. This exemplary performance of B&Q is credited to its employees’ contribution, which is supported and promoted by workplace policies and practices followed at B&Q. B&Q’s main office is located at Southampton, and is referred to as Store Support Office, from where their HR function provides specific learning and developmental opportunities and support to its employees in different locations. Their HR team works closely with organisation development team to improve performance through identifying, shaping and supporting initiatives meant for employee learning and development (About B&Q, n.d). Argyris (1999) emphasizes that contemporary management views effective organisational strat egy as that which promotes continual development of new understandings, models, and practices; this management aspect is referred to as organisational learning. From this perspective, organisational learning is one of the crucial tasks in strategic management. Organisations that encourage creativity, employee empowerment and involvement require employees to be continually learning and developing new skills and competencies that can help in their performance and contribution; this is more crucial for organisations that produce innovative products and services. Moreover, for employee empowerment to be effective, employees must have the knowledge and skills to make logical and correct business decisions. Although employees come with some learning through education and prior experience, learning at organisation should continue for many reasons. Workplace learning helps in maintaining high motivation and enthusiasm of the employees. This is demonstrated in statement made by Glendinning, the Business Services Manager in Finance department of B&Q: ‘It is a big part of my job to always be thinking ahead, to be able to analyse my current performance, to be a good team manager and of course to hit my sales targets. B&Q are a great support in getting

The Jainist And Carvaka Approach Ethics Are They Compatible Essay

The Jainist And Carvaka Approach Ethics Are They Compatible - Essay Example An individual who consistently becomes upset, discontent with the world, egotistic, and selfish towards the people around them grows into an individual with no peace of mind and the desire to accept the worldly situations as they are. The Jainist approach to ethics loathes fear of the legal system or individuals of the higher authority as this demonstrates the karmic bondage of such a person according to the karma philosophy. Jainists discourage actions that are associated with hypocritical practices aimed at enhancing exploitation of the weak and the vulnerable for material gains only (Kalghatgi 236). All individuals in the Jainist approach should aim at the achievement of happiness and peace of mind due to the fact such individuals possess the power to understand that commitment and equanimity begets happiness and personal satisfaction. The desire to revenge due to anger and resentment fuels violence and provides no room for peaceful solutions to available crises. For example, issu ing threatening remarks towards a terrorist as a way of controlling their actions has no impact at all, as it increases the resolve of the terrorist to continue with their activities. When the United States of America decided to enter the Gulf region to retaliate the attacks by terrorists, the solution to terrorism was sent to a mirage position as the criminals’ resolve was doubled (Koller 157). The Carvaka philosophy also traces its roots to the Indian philosophical development, and it assumes forms that go to materialism, philosophical skepticism, and indifference to religion. The development of the Carvaka philosophy arose from the orthodox Hindu and the Nastika philosophical developments in the early 17th century in India. The development of Indian philosophical work has... This essay stresses that the Carvakans skeptical analysis strengthens the resolve that there is no hell that possesses an excessive pain as that experienced by the current form of life in the world. It, however, agrees on the presence of a supreme who is the monarch of the earthly materials and whose actions and influence are both visible and can be felt in different ways. In their preposition, it is evident that the Carvakans committed a fallacy when they insisted that the fact that an event or object which is not known to exist cannot exist in any form. This paper makes a conclusion that the religious conceptions as explained in Jainist are rejected by the Carvakans philosophies. The Pianist advances the belief in the presence of animate and inanimate entities whose souls do not interact at any level. It, thus, believes in the presence of another form of life, a sort of reincarnation after the physical death on earth. This is against the ideals of Carvakans, which rejects the ability of an individual to escape the power of death and emerge in another form. This position placed the Carvakans philosopher at a collision course with the Veda proponents who also subscribed to a theoretical reference to reincarnation (Koller 159). To the Carvakans, any individual attributes that were used to represent an individual resided solely in the body and could not be replicated in another form after death in a process similar to reincarnation.