Creating Anglo-America 1660-1750 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 194

Creating Anglo-America 1660-1750 - Essay Example His strong belief in one God that is universal drove him to argue that God dwelled in all people and, therefore, no people (including those with authority/government) had the right whatsoever to force people into a particular form of worship. Penn was also a strong believer in the equality of all people regardless of their race, gender, sex, color or sex. This in turn made him advocate for equality by arguing that â€Å"liberty is a universal entitlement† that was conflicting the pre-existing belief that liberty was a right to be entitled only to certain individuals. To put this in a practical manner, Penn found it necessary to buy Indian land and offered it to the Indian refugees who had been driven out of the other colonies. In his attempt to come up with a government that put into consideration the rights of all, Penn came up with a frame of government in 1982. In his charter Penn aimed at offering â€Å"Christian liberty† to all who affirmed a strong belief in God and expected them not to promote the liberty in promoting sexually immoral things. In this period, the government was responsible for regulating the people`s moral public behavior and some particular people such as the Jews were not allowed to be holding an office of any religious institution. The Quakers strict code of personal morality drove Penn into believing that by giving people religious freedom immorality would reduce as people would lead a life that corresponded to God`s expectations. This charter, however, didn`t prove sufficient to guide the growing population of Pennsylvania and was therefore replaced with a charter of liberties whose political system lasted up to the period of American Revolution.   

Discuss South Africas apartheid policy of 1948. How was it initiated Essay

Discuss South Africas apartheid policy of 1948. How was it initiated Provide historical information of the time from the passing of this policy until gaining independence in 1979 - Essay Example In 1948 the National Party, which represented primarily the interests of Afrikaners, used the idea of ​​apartheid as their program and won the elections (Black South Africans already did not have the right to vote). All South Africans were divided by race into White, Colored, Black and Indians (Asians). Different groups had different rights; of course most of them belonged to Whites. Government introduced separate education and health care, transport, social and recreational facilities, churches; mixed marriages were banned. Even shops and beaches were â€Å"for whites only† and â€Å"for others.† Development of the policy of apartheid led to creation of Bantustans (Bantoestans in Afrikaans), the areas densely populated by indigenous Black South Africans; in fact those were reservations. The South African government created ten Bantustans in South Africa and ten in the South-West Africa (Namibia), which was under the control of South Africa. In fact, Bantustans were totally dependent on South Africa, their independence was not recognized by any country in the world. South Africa’s black population was forcibly resettled in the Bantustans. South Africa’s policy openly declared that the ultimate goal of creating Bantustans would be a situation in which no man with black skin color could be a citizen of South Africa and, accordingly, would not have any rights in this country. Due to condemnation and rejection of apartheid by the countries members of the British Commonwealth in 1961 South Africa left the Commonwealth and became an independent republic of South Africa. In 1994, after the end of apartheid South Africa’s Commonwealth membership was restored. Apartheid caused a strong resistance in South Africa itself. A number of organizations, primarily the ANC (African National Congress), organized numerous protests.

Organizational Behaviour Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3250 words - 1

Organizational Behaviour - Essay Example Managing OB is a relatively complex process in normal situations, especially if a major change occurs like mergers and acquisitions (M&A) or other important structural or managerial changes within an organization. This organizational change is quite often stressful to everyone concerned. There may be fears of loss of jobs, changes in duties and responsibilities, fears (or hopes) of change in the compensation structure, and the ever present attitude of resistance to change. This paper is a study of organizational behaviour, culture, and change in the context of an acquisition of two banks in the Republic of Cyprus. The study will be with reference to major theories, perceptions, books, journals, and that have been evolved over the years with regard to OB, culture and change. The Laiki Bank made an offer to Egnatia Bank, and the Marfin Financial Group in September 2006, and successfully acquired them a month later. The name of the organization (Laiki Bank) was changed to Marfin Popular Bank Public Company Ltd. The entity will be referred to Marfin Popular Bank in the rest of the paper. At the time of the acquisition Laiki Bank was one of the largest and oldest banks in Cyprus. What is interesting is that the other two banks were also similar in size and were running profitably. The offer to acquire the other two banks was approved by the shareholders of Laiki Bank and the acquisition took place a month after the offer was made. The apparent â€Å"motivation behind the merger was to create a strong financial group to facilitate expansion into the broader banking and financial market of the Balkan states and southeastern Europe† (Morley & Ward, 2008, P. 22). The Laiki Bank was partly owned by HSBC, which gave up its twenty one percent stake after the acquisition. In that sense, the management and employees of the bank had the

Stakeholder Impact Essay Example for Free

Stakeholder Impact Essay Stakeholder are groups of people who have interest in an organization and have the potential to impact or influence or to be impacted on, or to be influenced by the event. As good engagement with stakeholders is critical to successful event planning and delivery, therefore we should handle stakeholders and their needs carefully. If this crisis is poorly handled, it might create a wide impact on the event or even the event organization’s reputation. Therefore, it is very important to analyse each stakeholder, both individual and group, and then decide on the appropriate approach for each of them to keep them involved and supportive. In general, there are two types of stakeholder who can create impact to an organization or project which is internal stakeholder and external stakeholder. Internal stakeholders are people within the organization, for example employee, owner and shareholder. Therefore they can affect the hierarchy status using the formal power such as authority and senior position. They can also create influence to the organization culture with their leadership style or personal charisma. In addition, they can take control of strategic resources with their responsibility for strategic products. They also own the possession of knowledge and skills as they might own the expert knowledge to operate the project. For example, the balloonists in the hotair balloon event own the knowledge to fly the balloon. Other than that, internal stakeholder can control the environment due to their network relationships to external stakeholders. For example, the event planner of a company is the one who interact with the clients, so if he/she leaves the company, the clients might follow him/her too. Last but not the least is that they have involvement in strategy implementation, internal stakeholder have the decision power to do changes for example changing the supplier, suggesting other venue and so on. External stakeholders are people related to the project or organization who can affect and be affected by any decision made but not a member of them. They have the power to control the strategic resources. For example a monopolistic supplier has the power to decide the price and thus result in high cost for the organization. They also have involvement in strategy implementation; such external stakeholder may be strategic partners in distribution channels like media. They can also have to work together with the organization to find out the best way to send out the information to the target market. Other than that, they also have the possession of knowledge and skills. Examples are, organization outsources for subcontractors in order to utilize their expertise for the benefits of the organization.

Exclusion clauses

Exclusion clauses Introduction Exclusion clauses are generally found in contracts`. These types of clauses operate to exclude or restrict the rights of a party. For example, when a party to a contract wishes to limit their liability in the event that they breach the contract they will usually include an exclusion clause, limiting the amount that the other side can claim to a specified total. Sometimes, a party may include a provision attempting to exclude all liability for a certain thing that could go wrong. Exclusion clauses may also be called exemption or exception clauses. They operate for the benefit of one party to an agreement. It is always difficult for commercial contract drafters to know when an exclusion clause goes too far and might be stuck out as being unreasonable under the Unfair Contarct Terms Act 1977 (UCTA). On 15 April 2008 the Court of Appeal handed down its ruling in the case of Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd overturning a High Court decision that had previously caused suppliers considerable concern. The Court of Appeal decision set out some important factors that may be taken into account in determining whether an exclusion clause is enforceable and to be held valid. The case concerned the reliance by a supplier of serviced office accommodation (Regus) on part of an exclusion clause in its standard terms of business. The part of the exclusion clause in question sought to exclude liability in any circumstances for loss of business, loss of profits, loss of anticipated savings, loss of or damage to data, third party claims or any consequential losses. A further clause limited Regus liability for other losses, damages or expenses to  £50,000. The customer (Epcot) complained to Regus about defective air conditioning in the office, and when this was not fixed by Regus, Epcot stopped paying Regus the service charges due under the agreement. Regus brought proceedings against Epcot for the amounts due to it, and in response, Epcot argued that the failure to provide air conditioning amounted to a breach of contract and counterclaimed for loss of profits, loss of opportunity to develop its business and distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. In order to defeat part of Epcots claim, Regus had to show that the Exclusion Clause was enforceable in particular that it was reasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA). In a High Court judgment of May 2007, the court had ruled that although in theory it was entirely reasonable for Regus to restrict damages for loss of profits and consequential loss, the clause was unreasonable as a whole as the exclusion was so wide that it effectively left Epcot without a remedy for a basic service such as defective air conditioning. It was therefore unenforceable, leaving Regus exposed. Regus appealed on the grounds that the High Court judge had been wrong to say that the Exclusion Clause was unreasonable under UCTA and that it should be entitled to limit its liability in that way. The Court of Appeal agreed with Regus and reversed the High Courts ruling. The purpose of UCTA is to protect contracting parties (particularly consumers and business parties contracting on other business parties standard terms of business) from onerous contractual provisions such as exclusion and limitation of liability clauses. UCTA imposes limits on the extent to which liability for breach of contract, negligence or other breaches of duty can be avoided in a contract. Where a clause is contrary to the mandatory restrictions set out in UCTA or is deemed by the court to be unreasonable, such a clause will be unenforceable. Amongst other restrictions, Section 3 of UCTA is particularly important in the context of business to business contracts where the supplier is dealing on its standard terms of business. This section provides that where a term seeks to exclude or restrict a suppliers liability for breach of contract, such a term shall only be enforceable to the extent that it satisfies the reasonableness test. Thus, according to Section 11(1) of UCTA, in order to pass the reasonableness test, a contract term must have been: . a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made. Schedule 2 to UCTA contains a non-exhaustive list of guidelines in assessing reasonableness, which in practice the courts apply when considering reasonableness in the context of Section 3 of UCTA. Such factors include the strength of the bargaining position of the parties relative to each other, whether the customer received an inducement to agree to a particular term; whether the customer had the opportunity of entering into a similar contract without the term, whether the customer knew or ought to have known of the existence and the extent of the term and whether it was reasonable at the time of the contract to expect that compliance with a term would be practicable. In addition, under Section 11(4) of UCTA, where a party seeks by contract to restrict its liability to a specified sum of money, the courts will looks at the resources available to that party to meet the liability should it arise and the availability of insurance cover. Clause 23 We are not liable for any loss as a result of our failure to provide a service as a result of mechanical breakdown, strike, delay, failure of staff, termination of our interest in the building containing the business center or otherwise unless we do so deliberately or a negligent. We are also not liable for any failure until you have told us about it and given us a reasonable time to put it right. You agree (a) that we will not have any liability for any loss, damage or claim which arises as a result of, or in connection with your agreement and/or you use of the service except to the extent that such loss, damage, expense or claim is directly attributable to our deliberate act or our negligence (our liability); and (b) that our liability will be subject to the limits set out in the next paragraph. We will not in any circumstances have any liability for loss of business, loss of profits, loss of anticipated savings, loss of or damage to data, third party claims or any consequential loss. We strongly advise you to insure against all potential loss, damage expense or liability. We will be liable: Without limit for personal injury or death; Up to a maximum of  £1 million (for any one event or series of connected events) for damage to your personal property ; Up to a maximum equal to 125% of the total fees paid under your agreement up to the date on which the claim in question arises our  £50,000 (whichever is the higher), in respect of all other losses, damages expenses or claims. The meaning of in any circumstances Counsel for the defendant submitted that the words in any circumstances were apt to include liability for fraud or liability in respect of a deliberate attempt to damage the defendants business, this was held by the Court of Appeal to be the wrong approach to take. Lord Justice Rix Stated: Clause 23 as a whole does not purport to exclude liability (in the case of the losses identified in clause 23(3)) for fraud or wilful, reckless or malicious infliction of harm. Lord Justice Rix justified this approach on the following basis: Liability for fraud or malice or recklessness which is a species of either goes without saying: parties contract with one another in the expectation of honest dealing. In this sence it is important to distinguish between an intentional breach (which may fall within the in any circumstances) and the deliberate infliction of harm (which will not). On the present facts it could be said that the actions of the claimant were deliberate in the sense that they decided not to spend money on repairs to the air-conditioning system. But that is a long way from saying that the claimant acted with a dishonest or malicious intent to inflict harm upon the defendant. The conclusion of the Court of appeal on this issue suggest that the words in any circumstances should not be construed literally against the background of an expectation of honest dealing. Thus the words are unlikely to be held, as a matter of construction, to encompass liability in respect of the fraudulent, malicious or reckless infliction of harm. Available Remedies Judge Mackie held that clause 23 was too broad to be reasonable. He sp concluded for a number of reasons. First, he held that clause 23 deprived the defendant of any remedy at all for failure to provide a basic service like air conditioning in what is the business equilavant of an hotel, not the lease of flat. Secondly, he stated taht clause 23 provided an illusion of a remedy. On its face, clause 23 provider for a limitation of 125% of the total fees paid but when account was taken of the broad wording of the exclusion of financial losses, Judge Mackie stated that a business will eb unable to establish teh liability which the claimant seeks to limit. Damages for loss of amenity was held to be frail, remote and uncertain. The possibility of such a claim did not suffice to persuade Judge Mackie that the clause was reasonable. The Court of Appeals view was that, contrary to what the High Court judge had said, certain limited remedies were in fact available to Epcot and had not been excluded by virtue of the Exclusion Clause. In particular, Epcot could seek damages for the diminution in value of the services promised. The cost of relocating to alternative offices or the cost of replacement air-conditioning were other possible remedies. Assessment of Reasonableness Rix LJ then went on to consider whether the Exclusion Clause was reasonable in light of the fact that it did not exclude all remedies. Rix LJ decided that the Exclusion Clause was reasonable on the following grounds: as the High Court judge had said, in principle it was reasonable for Regus to restrict damages for loss of profits and consequential losses from the categories of loss for which it would become liable when in breach of contract;  § Epcots managing director was an intelligent and experienced businessman who was aware of Regus standard terms when he had entered into the contract and had contracted before on identical terms;  § Epcot had used a similar exclusion of liability for indirect or consequential losses in his own business;  § Epcot had sought to re-negotiate terms of the contract frequently and energetically, although not the Exclusion Clause;  § there was no inequality of bargaining power. Although Regus was the larger company, Epcot made use of and took advantage of the availability of local competitors of Regus in negotiations; and  § the Exclusion Clause advised Regus customers to take out insurance for the losses excluded by the Exclusion Clause. Rix LJ felt that Regus customers were better placed to insure themselves against their business losses rather than Regus to insure its customers. This was particularly the case as Regus customers would frequently change and Regus was very unlikely to be in possession of the level of information relating to its customers which underwriters would require in order to provide insurance. In addition, leaving customers to obtain such insurance would enable them to choose whether, how and at what price they would wish to insure against business losses. What is the effect of the Court of Appeals ruling? The Court of Appeal ruling will give some comfort to suppliers who had become nervous about excluding all financial losses in their standard terms of business following the High Courts ruling last year. The Court of Appeal has also provided some helpful guidance as to the sort of factors it will consider in assessing reasonableness. Although the facts will vary from case to case, as can be seen from the above, factors such as the parties bargaining strength, the sophistication of the buyer and the question of who is best placed to insure the loss will all be considered. Suppliers could also benefit from including wording in their exclusion clauses advising their customers to purchase insurance for those matters in relation to which the supplier excludes liability. Although the courts do not have power to rewrite an exclusion clause or sever words that make it unreasonable, here the Court of Appeal held that if the relevant exclusion clause had been unreasonable it could have been severed so as to level a related limitation clause intact. The two clauses, although not formally divided up into separate subclauses, were independent of each other and several different purposes. It is, however, clearly preferable for a drafter to separate out different elements of the exclusion into subclauses rather than to rely on a single all-embracing clause. The reasonableness of an exclusion clause will always depend on the circumstances of the individual case. In the Regus case, the fact that the customer clearly understood the exclusion clause had strong bargaining position and had sought to renegotiate some of the terms, together with the courts view that it was reasonable for the customer to insure against indirect losses, led the Court of Appeal to conclude that the clause was reasonable. In Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd, S appealed against a decision ([2000] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 984) that two clauses purporting to limit liability in respect of a contract it had entered into with W were unreasonable in their entirety. The contract contained an entire agreement clause which stated that no reliance had been made by the parties on statements or representations made by them. Held, allowing the appeal, that the judge had erred in (1) failing to properly identify the scope and effect of the limit of liability clause since the clause did not attempt to exclude liability for pre-contract misrepresentation; (2) failing to treat the obligation agreed to by S in an agenda to the contract, to use best endeavours to allocate appropriate resources to the project in order to minimise potential contractual losses, as an additional obligation to those imposed by the standard terms and conditions, and (3) treating Ws own standard terms of business as irrelevant since they showed that W was well aware of the commercial considerations which would lead a supplier to include limit of liability clauses. This was directly relevant to determining whether such clauses were fair and reasonable having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought to have been known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made. In SAM Business Systems Ltd v Hedley Co, S, a software company, claimed the sum of GBP 310,510 in respect of the outstanding licence fee for a software system which it had supplied to H, stockbrokers. H counterclaimed substantial damages for alleged defects in the system. Immediately after the system went live H experienced serious problems with it and, a year later, ceased using the system without informing S. One month later, H gave S notice that it intended to reject the system. S subsequently issued proceedings against H submitting that its liability for misrepresentation and breach of contract had been excluded under the contract and, in any event, H had failed to give timely unequivocal notice of rejection pursuant to the process specified in the contract and at the time when H did give notice of rejection it had already gained substantial benefit from it. Held, giving judgment for S, that the exclusion clause fulfilled the requirement of reasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 , Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer Co Ltd [1992] Q.B. 600 CA (Civ Div) applied. The parties were of equal bargaining power in terms of size and resources, it was a standard feature of the computer software industry to supply software only on stringent terms excluding all or virtually all liability and H had not even tried to negotiate more favourable terms, Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 317, [2001] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 696 distinguished. Accordingly, notwithstanding that S had waived an entire agreement clause, S was not liable to H for breach of contract or misrepresentation and was entitled to the balance of the outstanding licence fee. If that conclusion was wrong, H had already gained an enormous benefit from using the defective system by the time it notified S of its decision to reject it. If H had had no computer system it would have gone out of business. Accordingly, H would not have been entitled to claim all its money back from S since it had had the benefit of 17 months service from the system, which it would not have had if it had gone through the process specified in the contract to recover its money. The reasonableness of the clause The narrower approach to the construction of in any circumstances combined with the concession that clause 23 did not prevent the defendant from recovering damages in respect of any diminution in the value of the services provided, had the effect of the undermining the approach which Judge Mackie had taken to the reasonableness of clause 23. This being the case, the court of Appeal held that it was entitled to take a fresh view of the reasonableness of the clause. It concluded that the clause was, in fact, reasonable. In so concluding, the Court of appeal had regard to a number of factors. First, it held that in principle it was entirely reasonable for the claimant to restrict damage to loss of profits and consequential losses from the categories of loss for which it could become liable when in breach of contract. Second, the chief executive of the defendant was an intelligent and experienced businessman who was well aware of the claimant standard terms when he entered into the contract and the defendants own standard terms of business contained a similar exclusion of liability in respect of indirect or consequential losses. Third, there was no inequality of bargaining power between the parties and there had been meaningful negotiation between them in relation to the terms of the contract. Although the claimant was by far the bigger enterprise, the presence of competitors who were also seeking to rent out space, gave to the defendant considerable negotiating in relation to the terms of the contrac t. Finally, the third paragraph of clause 23 advised the claimants customers to protect themselves by insurance for the losses with which paragraph was concerned. In the opinion of Lord Justice Rix, it would have been easier for the customers to obtain insurance against business losses than for the claimant to seek to insure against the range of losses that could conceivably by suffered by its customers. As Lord Justice Rix observed, If insurance is left to each business customer, that customer has full autonomy over whether, how and at what price he wishes to insure against business losses. If however, such losses have to be insured by Regus, then that autonomy is lost, and the expense has necessarily to be incurred and transferred to each customers on the form of the fees charged. On the basis of above, the Court of Appeal concluded that the claimant had proved that the third paragraph of clause 23 satisfied the requirements of the reasonableness test. Severance The final issue considered by the Court of Appeal concerned the severance of the third paragraph in clause 23, assuming it to be unreasonable. As has been noted, it was conceded by the defendant that the third paragraph ws severable from paragraph (and it had never been suggested that the fourth paragraph was unreasonable on its own terms). Lord Justice Rix stated that the concession was well made. While clause 23 was not divided up into separate sub-clauses, he held that it was plain that the fourth paragraph was independent of the third paragraph. He also noted that the fourth paragraph was a limitation clause rather than an exclusion clause and, as such, served a different purpose. The willingness of the Court of Appeal to countenance severance in this context is to be welcomed. It would be rather artificial to conclude that severance is only possible in the case where the relevant sub-clauses have been separately numbered. Separate numbering may be a wise step to take but, as the present case demonstrates, it is not mandatory. Whether separate paragraphing is necessary is another matter. It is probably not necessary but the fact that the clause is broken down into separate paragraphs is likely to be of assistance in demonstrating to the court that one paragraph is independent of the other and that the invalidation of one paragraph should not result in the invalidation of other paragraphs in the same clause.

The Second Tradition of Thanksgiving Essay -- Essays Papers

When the great holiday of Thanksgiving comes to mind, most people think of becoming total gluttons and gorging themselves with a seemingly unending amount of food. Others might think of the time spent with family and friends. The whole basis of the holiday is family togetherness, fellowship, and thankfulness for blessings received during the previous year. Every family has their own unique way of spending time together with loved ones only seen during the holidays. In the Stock home, there is only one thing we enjoy doing. Sure, like every other family we have our grand and elaborate dinner, which is composed of all the greatest delicacies my mother and grandmother can whip up. Of course, as is expected, after stuffing ourselves as if this was our last meal the men in the family congregate in the living room. We sit and wait for our tradition to begin by discussing how each of our lives has been unfolding since last Thanksgiving. Finally, the moment arrives, kick off of the first of many Thanksgiving Day football games. There are thousands of fans who watch football with religious devotion. At the Stock house that is not the case. However on Thanksgiving, our eyes glaze over and we rise to the highest of football enthusiasts. Every man sitting around our big screen T.V. has his own team to cheer for, which usually causes many spirited discussions during the four quarters of testosterone induced insanity. As the game plays on we all grow further and further engrossed in watching. As the women talk in the kitchen and the children run around, sometimes even right in front of the television, our stares never stray from the glowing giver of joy. It might seem silly... ...nderstand and appreciate the games my dad and the rest of my male family members have been watching for years, I became that much closer with all of them. As John Madden said â€Å"The turkey brings the family together, but the football keeps them together† (www.espn.com). As a tradition Thanksgiving’s football watching extravaganza has become an occasion I have begun to look forward to for months. After spending this great tradition with my father and my family those geezers are looking a lot younger. Work Cited Stock, John, Personal Interview, 11-29-03 www.espn.com, Friday, Nov. 21, ESPN, 11-21-03 www.football.com, Friday, Nov. 21, NFL Internet Network, 11-21-03 http://rats2u.com/thanksgiving_events.htm, 2001, St. Clair Associates, 11-21-03 http://www.dezmin.com/Mtarchives/000-122.html, Nov. 21, 2001, Dezmin’s Archives and It’s Contributors, 11-21-03

The Devils Arithmetic - Relationships Essay -- Jane Yolen

The Devil’s Arithmetic is written by Jane Yolen. The story’s main character is Hannah. Hannah is a thirteen year old girl who is unappreciative of her family and everything they do for her. During a Seder dinner, Hannah is transported back in time to rural Poland in 1942. In this time Hannah becomes Chaya. During a wedding procession, she is captured and taken to a concentration camp. In the camp Hannah experienced different kinds of family structures. Some of the family structures Hannah experienced in the camp were with her immediate family, her friendships, and with other strangers. During her time as Chaya, Hannah was involved in many family structures. One of which is with her immediate family. She witnessed self sacrifice of herself and the others around her. While getting ready for her Uncle Shmuel’s wedding, she received two blue ribbons. Her Aunt Gitl gave her a blue dress, and to go with the dress she gave Hannah a pair of blue ribbons, which she had been saving for her wedding night. â€Å"These I was saving for my wedding night-about which you know so much,† (pg. 6) Gitl sacr...