New Heritage Doll Company: Capital Budgeting Essay

The New Heritage Doll Company’s Vice-President of Production, Emily Harris, had to decide which of two proposals she should approve for the company’s upcoming capital budgeting meetings. The first project involved expanding an existing â€Å"Match My Doll Clothing† line, which had a proven record of success in the past. The second project introduced a new initiative called â€Å"Design Your Own Doll†, which used a web-based software enabling users to customize a doll’s features to the customers’ specifications. To help Emily reach her decision, I will calculate the Net Present Value (NPV) of both projects to find out which project is more profitable. In the financial analysis of both projects Emily was given the following assumptions: 1. Operating projections were used to develop cash flow forecasts and then to calculate Net Present Value, Internal Rates of Return, payback period and other investment metrics. The cash flows excluded all financing charges and non-cash items (i.e. depreciation), and were calculated on an after-corporate-tax basis. The New Heritage’s corporate tax rate was 40% 2. Discount rate was set at 8.4% – for medium-risk project 3. NPV calculations included a terminal value computed as the value of a perpetuity growing at constant rate. I computed Free Cash Flows (FCF) to find out the actual amount of cash from operations that the company could use in developing its new projects. I calculated the terminal value for 2020 as projected FCF in the first year beyond the projection horizon divided by discount rate of 8.4% less the perpetuity growth rate, which in this case was 3%. According to my calculations the MMDM’s terminal value in 2020 is 16,346,000 and DYOD’s is 27,486,000.

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? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Education marginalization Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Education marginalization - Essay Example In the Rich era, women marginalization was extremely persistent such that people saw women education as not only a sin but also a sin. In her essay, Rich gives us a picture of how women got marginalized in her time as a student and a teacher. She argues that different genders do not get the same education because out of the classroom women get not perceived as independent beings but as prey lacks the capacity to think autonomously and to take intellectual possibilities. She further says that women lack the opportunity to assert them mentally stands inseparable from their physical way of existing in the world, lacking feelings of personal integrity (Langdell 54). I can see where she comes from talking about women teachers and students not getting equal treatment, as opposed to men counterparts. I honestly do not think it is not that pathetic anymore. It was perhaps much worse then unlike now, and I actually do not see much discrimination in classrooms as she must have seen. One thing I do concur with her is the issue of rape and female verbal abuse. It is quite correct that most times women can not even walk down a street or walk in a group of males without having something uttered to them. A report titled â€Å"Reaching the Marginalized† got launched in a prolific event at the UN Head Quarters in New York. In the report, it was evident that 72 million children still remained out of school in 2010 despite education getting cherished as a fundamental human right within the UN affirmation of Human Right ever since its initiation. UN tries to make all possible exertions to accomplish achieving non marginalized education as part of Millennium Development Goals. It should make an effort on enhanced funding to encounter the development financing gap. Donors should also be asked to deliver their pledges. Other than women, there stand many groups that get marginalized in the education system depending on their place of education. Marginalization may be practiced by teachers against students or students against fellow students. This marginalization gets based on racial, disability, educational dullness, origin, age, among many other factors. For instance, there exist scho ol where by a teacher will fail a student mainly because is of a certain race or family. Some students will turn down others in their academic group discussions on the basis that they are dull or non productive in the group, hence leaving the poor student marginalized (Langdell 39). The mentally ill students also significantly get marginalized in the educational systems of many societies. Considering that not all people have the average intelligence quotient, it is particularly devastating and inhuman to marginalize certain student or group of student on the basis of intelligence. Children suffering with autism often get this form of marginalization from their fellow students or even worse, from their teachers (Langdell 207). To make the matter worse, these students get marginalization from the least expected persons like family members and even

Economics of Modern Capitalism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Economics of Modern Capitalism - Essay Example Malthus made two propositions in his argument about population. Firstly, that population escalates in a geometrical type of ratio and secondly, that subsistence rises in an arithmetical type of ratio. These two Malthus’ propositions form the popular population principle which, as he argues is part of the causes of lack of progress by mankind to the achievement of happiness. This so called cause is coherently related to the human nature where there is a continual trend of the entire animated life to rise in populations beyond what is there to nourish them. The necessary as well as natural impacts arising from such tendency are misery and other related vices that has had philanthropists trying in vain to rectify. The principle of population applied by Malthus to bring forth his argument is all based upon natural law where animated life increases far much higher than the available means for the subsistence of their life. This natural law of growth in population is usually put in check by another as Malthus continued to argue, which is the necessity law that restrains the growth inside particular boundaries and at the same time keeping it as low as the available subsistence means. In the case of humans, this natural law of necessity acts by the dictated way of numerous checks that can be ranked under two major categories. These major categories are with the inclusion of; (i) preventive kind of checks that put an impediment upon fertility and (ii) the positive types of checks that raise mortality or the death probability. The final outcome is the misery and poverty situations witnessed among the poor of every country as well as the futile attempts by the well-to-do to rescue them. Marx, and Engel alike, on the other hand came up with a counter argument in reaction to Malthus’ theory of population. They did their analysis under two levels to make their argument clear. The first level is their view that Malthus’ theory is too general principally i n that it is just another of the way bourgeois economists make more reified the relationships observed in a typical society. In the theory of Malthus, reify bears the meaning of changing concrete historical relations in a society as well as processes into eternal laws of nature. The process of reification mentioned with regards to social relationships, are characterised in the intellectual production nature under the capitalist conditions of production and the process of human reflections of the social life forms in tandem with the scientific analysis of the same social life forms. The second level is the more precise level of the Marx’s reaction to Malthus’ population principle. This level is about the principle of â€Å"the reserve army of labour† which is also referred to as the relative surplus population. He expounds on his point as he continues to make an analysis of the capital accumulation general law. Marx says that the expansion and accumulation of cap ital comprises of the capitalism’s driving force and this becomes a possibility only in scenarios where capitalists are able to operate at a gain. Gains arise in the appropriation of the surplus value that is produced by the power of labour he purchases. Accumulation arises at the point where capitalists change a part of their surplus value capital. This serves capitalists by allowing them some space to realise expansion and to apportion the extra surplus value and

How can HR management systems and practices in Malaysia businesses be Essay

How can HR management systems and practices in Malaysia businesses be re-designed using KM and OL principles to increase innovat - Essay Example The various HRM practices would give an insight into the functionality of the Malaysian organizations and on the various procedures of conducting operations like training, selection, staffing and recruitment (Barnes 2002, 220-320). Finally, the study will highlight how the inclusion of OL and KM principles would lead to the betterment of the functionality of the organizations. Human Resources Management Practices in Malaysia In Malaysian organizations, the focus is on the integration of HR activities and practices which requires the alignment of the existing personal HR practices with the interests of the employee and personnel (Gelder 2005, 322). The strategic importance and emphasis is given on the integration of activities in the electronic industry of Malaysia. This strategic integration is an important element as it helps in solving the complexities of the problems and also, in assessing the interpretation of the problems (Gill 2000, 23). The HR strategy formulation is also give n its much deserved importance in Malaysian organizations which lay emphasis on the development and implementation of internal consistent polices and practices designed for the accomplishment of objectives (Hashim 2009, 224). The HRM practices in the human resource development process helps in the organizational innovation process. Malaysian organizations concentrate on the importance of the HR business and organizational strategy and also, on the protection of assets. However, it has been observed that the Malaysian organization does not believe in the job rotation facilities and hammers on imparting the operation knowledge (Haslinda and Sarinah 2013, 324). The Malaysian organizations are highly dependent on technological innovations and procedures which need to be re-designed constructively for enhancing the organizational outcome and also, for improving the existing systems. Figure 1: Human Resources in Malaysia (Source: Curtin University of Technology 2005). Redesigning of HR Pr actices using the Knowledge & Organizational Learning Principles Knowledge Management (KM) principles help in the improvement of the existing systems by employing own attributes (Institutional Repository 2006).There are several methods to implement the change management techniques for continuous improvement in the existing systems (Laiken 2001, 23). This is because the KM principles vary according to the situation and help in the improvement of the operational abilities of the organization (Infed 2013). The process is not iterative and relies heavily on the management systems. It aids the amalgamation of the engineering process and systems and also, the analysis of the organizational dynamics (Lee and Ahn 2001, 213). The structuring of organizational dynamics would be required for the integration of activities and systems which would address all the organizational issues and problems. The model is used to hone the skills of the employees, redesign the organizational structure and al so, gain expertise through the exchange of knowledge systems with their colleagues. The Malaysian organization needs to emphasize on their functioning in three important facets of the organization. They are namely, virtual work team, community of practice (COP) and expertise network systems. These three elements stress on the creation and

Current state of the U.S banking industry Research Paper

Current state of the U.S banking industry - Research Paper Example It is also responsible for issuing the dollar (J. P. Morgan 12). Basically the US is dominated by three types of banks and these are; Commercial banks, credit unions and savings and loans associations. These institutions present a full variety of services to persons, companies and governments. Commercial banks vary in size ranging from global to local and even small society banks with ATM locations. lately, online banks which presents services by means of the internet have surfaced (J. P. Morgan 43). Are also referred to as thrift institutions, and are the next major faction of depository organizations. They were primarily established as society footed organizations to fund mortgages for the community. Eventually, the difference linking savings banks and commercial banks has vanished. Credit unions are another form of a depository organization. They are created by a group of persons who share a general interest. Loans and savings accounts are only limited to associates or members. They are not meant to make profit and they are headed by members who are elected as the board. These are government organizations dealing with numerous economic services like controlling banking business, making and applying the state’s monetary plans. They use monetary policies to encourage financial development and border inflation. During phases of slower financial activity, the Federal Reserve might augment the supply of money by buying government securities plus additional assets. It as well encourages financial enlargement by lowering interest costs for loans. It may fight inflation through sale of securities and increasing interest rates (Zhang 45). Interest from advances is the main cause of returns for the majority banks. Money loaned by banks comes mainly from customer plus company deposits. These deposits frequently make interest for the proprietor by ways such as online payments cheques. The U.S. government regulates the money in banks by

Are science and religion in conflict Research Paper

Are science and religion in conflict - Research Paper Example According to science, everything which happens in the universe has a natural cause and it does not relate it to a God or an unseen force. On the contrary, the religion only believes in God and establishes its foundation on concept of God and in his unlimited powers. Science completely relies on proof and religion is depended on morality, faith and spirituality and hence both remains in conflict forever. All religion in the world is based on God and his attributes and science on other hand is a study of nature. The basis and principles of religion is passed on to people from their ancestors and elders and has strong grounds of belief and faith. But science is developed by studying and researching on elements of nature. Science only believes on fact and evidence based information and cannot rely on imagination and faith. The core reason for the conflict between science and religion is on matter of creation of universe and the former regards creation of universe as accidental whereas re ligion strongly believes that creation of universe is a planned action of God. Science does not believe in miracle or supernatural powers whereas the religious concepts have many illusionary and superficial thinking attached to it. Part Two: Argument Incompatible Nature of Science and Religion Science and religion has their ideas rooted in different subjects and as a result they conflict with each other on varied platforms. On every sphere of human activity like astronomy, history, medicine, human sexuality and religious practices and events, science and religion maintains different opinions. According to religion, the astronomy is related to the position of planets and the way they influence the everyday life of human beings. Ancient people used to make astronomical observation and understand the position of planets and assess their positive and negative effect on human beings. They integrated rituals and religious ceremonies keeping in mind the influence of planets on human life. As per science, astronomy is the study of various planets and their origin, nature and evolution. Even on history, science and religion contradict each other regarding various events taken place in the past like the creation of earth and flood story about Noah’s ark. The science neglects these stories as they believe in evidence found by fossil excavation and anthropology. Science believes in Darwin’s evolution theory and suggests that man evolved from apes. According to old and New Testament, earth is millions of years old whereas science suggests that earth are not that old as testament indicate. In relation to language, religion believes that it originated among people of Babel in Middle East. However, science point out that language evolved among people who travelled in groups and sub groups during migration. When it comes to medicine, there is also difference of opinion among science and religion .Science believes that medicine is the only means to heal diseases w here as religion is of the opinion that faith and prayers to the God helps people to keep away from illnesses. Religion believes in the connection of body with the soul and how God exists in the soul of all human beings. Since faith in religion is something related to mind and grounded in the belief of God, science does not give importance to it. According to (Cray, 2006) â€Å"God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in†. Science mainly relates itself with nature and its activities, whereas religion sees and believes in things beyond nature. In religion there