Immigration Enforcement Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Immigration Enforcement - Essay Example The department of state (DOS) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) play the role of administering the law and policies on the unknown or foreigners. DOS plays the main responsibility of issuing visas, citizenship of U.S and immigration services. DHS is responsible for approving immigrant petitions, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in some chosen embassies abroad (Brotherton & Kretsedemas, 2008). Department of State (DOS) holds excessive power over the issuance of the visa. Consular officers are more concerned about facilitating tourism and trade to inspect visa applicants carefully. It is often argued that the principal authorities should be given to VSP, which assigns special agents with expertise in immigration law and stand against terrorism (Brotherton & Kretsedemas, 2008). Border security deals in many ways by which illegal and fugitive individuals and the goods enter the country. Border security technically involves controlling the ports from which legitimate or legal travelers enter the country. It also involves patrolling these lands and borders to prohibit illegal entries in the country. Fencing the borders is one permanent issue (Brotherton & Kretsedemas, 2008). One billion US Dollars were allotted for the use of Border Initiative Network (SBInet), the virtual fence of the cameras, radar and for the devices of communication, which was cancelled due to the misuse and overrun of cost from 2006-2010 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). International land border and other oversight issues would keep on raising the question of what the technology, infrastructure, and personnel should be or do to identify and prohibit the entries of illegal personnel in the country. Efforts to improve the security of immigration documents are made to develop a system that tackles corrupted or fraud documents (dAppollonia & Reich, 2008). Since the terrifying

Soda is bad for you Essay Example for Free

Soda is bad for you Essay Dr. Sara Po trom Family Cosmetic Dentistry, but shes not the only one that thinks that! Almost all pop has some sort ot sugar or high tructose corn syrup in it: this is known to damage teeth. The sugar in carbonated sott drinks is a primary source tor cavities. Bacteria in your mouth teed on sugar and ake an acid that dissolves tooth enamel says Dentist Howard S. Glazer. Howard Glazer is the president of the Academy of General Dentistry and has been a dentist for over 15 years. Faber 2 Not only do regular sodas affect a persons teeth negatively, diet soda does also, According to the Colgate Dental Resource Center, Soft drinks and diet soft drinks have emerged as one of the most significant dietary sources of tooth decay, affecting people of all ages. Acids and acidic sugar byproducts in soft drinks soften tooth enamel, contributing to the formation of cavities _ Acid and acidic sugar byproducts re both found In many different types of soda Sodas contain a high amount of Acidity, and when you get a lot of acidity In your mouth that can cause the formation of cavities to speed Your chances of getting cavities are much greater when the acid level In your saliva goes under a certain point. Drinking soda frequently causes the acid level In your saliva to go under that point, and when that happens your teeth start to lose natural minerals that protect your teeth from getung cavities. According to an unknown author at Fltsugar. com, The phosphoric acid In soda, which Is what eeps It nice and bubbly, dissolves the calcium out of your teeths enamel, leaving them soft and unprotected causing cavities. The phosphoric acid In soda not only affects the enamel on your teeth but It also affects your bones. The American Journal ot cllnlcal Nutrition published a study that showed evidence that supports the Idea that drinking more soda lowers bone density. The lower the density ot a bone, the more likely it is to break. James A Howenstine the authorot, A Physicians Guide to leading to lower calcium levels and higher phosphate levels in the blood. When hosphate levels are high and calcium levels are low, Faber 3 calcium is pulled out of the bones phosphate content of soft drinks it is very high, and they contain virtually no calcium. That can cause bones to weaken. A recent study at Harvard shows that people who drink soda are three times as likely to get bone fractures compared to those who dont drink soda. Men and women that drank three or more sodas a day had 2. 3 to 5. percent less bone mass compared to those who didnt drink any pop at all. This is because excess phosphorus in your diet binds with calcium in your digestive tract, which keeps it rom reaching your bones says Dr. Tucker from Tufts University. Any kind of pop regular, caffeine free, or diet contains phosphorus. Phosphorus is an ingredient that increases the acidity of your blood. Your body takes calcium from your bones, in an effort to try and get rid of some of the acidity in your blood which leads to bone loss over a sort period of time. Just three colas per week may be enough to create significant bone loss says Dr. Tucker. In a 120z can of regular soda, on average there is 160 calories. In one can of soda contains anywhere from 10-12 teaspoons of sugar hich is your recommended intake for one entire day. 62% of Americans drink at least one soda per day. Soda contains virtually no nutritional value, these added empty calories can add up to 65,700 extra calories a year if a person drinks Just one soda a day. These statistics are according to California Center for Public Health. Drinking an excessive amount of soda can lead to a person to be overweight or even lead to obesity. Soda pop is a quintessential Junk food, Its Just pure calories, and no nutrients. Its like a bomb in our diet. The CSPI is pushing to require obesity warning abels on the sides of soda Faber 4 cans, like the surgeon generals warning on cigarettes said Michael Jacobson, who heads the Center for Science in the Public Interest. In a study done at Harvard scientists gave 100 people regular soda to drink for a week. Then gave anot her 100 people other drinks such as milk, water, and orange Juice to drink for a week. In the end the people who drank the regular soda gained as much as 81bs. Dr. Louis Aronne of Weill-Cornell Medical College says Its because soda pop of any kind is a waste of calories. It gives you more sugar then your body needs which means more calories, nd in the end doesnt fill you up at all. Most people that drink soda and go on diets usually think that switching over to diet soda will be better for them because it contains no calories. Researchers at the University Of Texas Health Sciences Center found there is a 41% increased of being overweight for every can of diet soda you drink each day. The study found that people who drank diet soda gained more weight than those who drank regular soda. A reason for this is that diet soda fools your body into thinking its getting calories.

In a large number of situations both insurers

In a large number of situations both insurers â€Å"In a large number of situations both insurers and the courts recognise that the doctrine of subrogation in insurance may have unfortunate results and is wasteful. It is clear that the doctrine no longer serves any useful purpose†. Discuss. INTRODUCTION It has been recognised that fundamentally it is tort law that ensures compensation for loss in terms of compensation within the concept of the tortfeasor restoring loss through damages being paid to the person wronged[1]. In terms of insurance this liability can be revealed through the idea behind third party liability, the first party being the insured, the second party being the insurer, and the third party relating to any potential for restitution needing to be paid to anybody not included within the terms of the contract who might have met some sort of loss through the actions of the insured person, eventually becoming incorporated into the law of liability. Meanwhile, subrogation[2] has been defined as â€Å"the substitution[3] of one person in place of another with reference to a lawful claim†[4] or, more simply, the recognition in law that a lawful claim may be pursued by a third party in accordance with the principles of substitution[5]. Various types of subrogation are recognised, revealed as legal, statutory and conventional subrogation, the latter relating specifically to the terms of a contract, the legal revealed in allowing one individual to assume the rights over another and the statutory occurring as a result of the law being applied in terms of legal subrogation. This essay, focuses on the tenets of insurance law through which the principle of indemnity is revealed through the doctrine of subrogation in terms of its conventional interpretation within its statutory framework, i.e. as a remedy in â€Å"what might be classified as unjust enrichment in a legal system that is based upon the civil law†[6]. Subrogation originates from both common law and the laws of equity and it is also through both equity and common law that it continues to be administered, with the law of restitution recognised as a quasicontract within common law rather than incorporated into the laws of contract[7] or the law of tort. It has, however, become clear that this doctrine of subrogation no longer serves any useful purpose and has by been recognised both insurers and the courts that, in many situations, it may have unfortunate results and is wasteful. This essay discusses the issues surrounding the concept of subrogation and presents an argument that suggests that the function of this doctrine is, indeed, outmoded, inefficient and costly. DISCUSSION No Profit Rule Any capricious risk reassigned through a contract of insurance is subject to various fundamental assumptions, one of which is the factor surrounding that risk’s arbitrary nature. Through the element of ‘utmost good faith’[8] it is expected that the person to be insured discloses everything that could be relevant to the risk that the insurer is taking when it has agreed to insure the client[9]. Similarly, the client may not be put at a disadvantage by any actions the insurer may undertake, with a number of regulations to ensure that the insurer adheres to acceptable practices and the insured does not, through any misrepresentation, preclude any entitlements owed to the insurer[10]. Under the terms of the ‘made whole principle’ the insured person must be reimbursed in full prior to any profit being considered liable to the insurer, and the insurer may not implement the doctrine of subrogation until the insured person has been reimbursed in full[11], exc ept where a clause in the policy enables the insurer to apply the principle of subrogation when only partial payment has been made. Nevertheless, insurers are within their statutory rights to offer a voluntary settlement to the insured person and then pursue judgment with the expectation of receiving full compensation through implementing the doctrine of subrogation against the third party’s liability insurance. However, the client may not jeopardise the trust that exists between insurer and insured by claiming more than their loss[12], more recently the basis of a case where a Canadian Court of Appeal reduced the amount of compensation received by the Appellant, while they: â€Å"imposed significant punishment for the bad faith of the respondent without upsetting the proper balance between the compensatory and punitive functions of tort law†. Although in English law claiming more than the actual loss is not specifically illegal, to do so would be in breach of equitable principles and the doctrine of indemnity which assumes that the insured person would not make a profit from their loss. The doctrine of subjugation may be used in certain cases, stipulated by the courts, in order to remedy situations[13] whereby an unjust profit had been made, in accordance with the explanation given by Lord Diplock in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd: â€Å"It is a convenient way of describing the transfer of rights from one person to another, without assignment or assent of the person from whom the rights are transferred and which takes place in a whole variety of widely different circumstances†[14]. Should the situation occur whereby the insured profits, it would be expected that they reimburse any excess to their insurer[15]. Meanwhile, if, after both the insured and the insurer has been fully indemnified, there is excess money from the claim, the insurer is within their rights to claim it, as in the case of Yorkshire Insurance Co v Nisbet Shipping Co[16]. Similarly, if a claim is settled in full by a third party and the money paid to the insurer, then that insurer is legally within their rights to deduct any excess from the compensation before paying the residue to the insured in accordance with the terms of their insurance agreement, as revealed in the case of Scottish Union National Insurance Co v Davis[17]. Evidence of Loss The Courts tend to interpret insurance policies in accordance with those rules relating to the laws governing contracts, taking the overall context as being consistent with the actual intended meaning[18] although, in situations where a meaning might be unclear it is usually the insured person who benefits in accordance with the doctrine of contra proferentem in terms of the guidelines of equity, although in the case of Leppard v Excess Insurance Co Ltd the actual sum awarded to the insured was reduced on Appeal as it was ruled the insured had been awarded indemnity in excess of his loss[19]. Accordingly, and in view of the fact that insurance policies are subject to the rules of contract, it is necessary to ascertain whether the client was insured and, if so, under what terms, as revealed in the case of Sprung v Royal Insurance (UK) Ltd[20] where it was decided that, although the plaintiff had clearly suffered a loss through the late payment of his claim, the: â€Å"loss was recoverable in law from the defendants in addition to the interest element of the sum which had already been paid in respect of the loss under the policy†[21]. However, the figure awarded should be in accordance with the market value of the property and, in situations where a property was incomplete, the value of the loss should reflect the market value at the time the loss occurs, illustrated by the case of Richard Aubrey Film Productions Ltd v Graham[22] who, nearing completion of their filming, had their negatives stolen. At completion the film had an estimated market value of around  £20,000 but, as it still required further editing and other attention, thought to be around  £4,700 in value, prior to release the full market value was not considered to be appropriate. It was interpreted that compensation should be in accordance with the value of an ordinary indemnity contract, reflecting the sum a buyer would be prepared to pay for the film at the time of loss. An overriding factor in assessing whether compensation may be payable is the legislation appropriate to each individual case, identified through either its comprehensive cover or through its specific limitations in terms of criteria. Policies need to take account for the devastation fire can cause, taking into account ‘reasonable reinstatement’ as clarified by Reynolds v Phoenix Assurance Co Ltd[23] relating to the proposed refurbishment of an old mill. On the advice of their insurance brokers they greatly increased their indemnity. Subsequently a fire destroyed most of the building. It was established that the policyholder genuinely intended to rebuild the property and should be properly indemnified, although an issue was raised with the doctrine of undue enrichment, which was taken into account. Remedy of Restitution According to case law, and especially clarified by Lord Diplock[24], it is generally an accepted principle that the rule of subrogation cannot be appropriate in every case and should be utilised reservedly for instances where it is especially pertinent and, as clarified in the case of Re TH Knitwear (Wholesale) Ltd[25], only to the satisfaction of the courts, as in the case of Campbell Auto Finance Co v Warren in 1933[26], and similarly in later rulings, e.g. Re Chobaniuk and Canadian Johns Manville Co Ltd[27], although there are always exceptions. Subrogation may occur through the breach of duty or duplicity by the defendant resulting in the plaintiff being owed some form of corrective justice and recognised as a fundamental principle that profit may not be assumed through deceit[28], or the doctrine of unjust enrichment[29], in accordance with Lord Goff’s ruling in Lipkin Gorman[30]: â€Å"A claim to recover money at common law is made as a matter of right; and even though the underlying principle of recovery is the principle of unjust enrichment, nevertheless, where recovery is denied, it is denied on the basis of legal principle†. An insurer may enter into a simple subrogation by metaphorically standing in place of the insured person[31], after the insured person’s claim has been paid[32], and claiming the value of the insured person’s indemnity from this third party. This claim through subrogation must, however, be undertaken in the name of the insured person to reflect the fact that liability continues even though the insured person has already been indemnified. In effect, this means that the insurer is forcing the insured person to undertake further action despite the fact that they have already received full payment. The result will reimburse the insurer to the value of that which has already been paid to the insured. In theory, this would enable an insured person who had suffered a loss from the actions of a third person, to receive double compensation through a secondary action against the third party, the tortfeasor, as in the case of Caledonia North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Co[33] during which the insurers were allowed to â€Å"exercise a right of subrogation and sue in the insured's name under the contracts of indemnity†. The perception of compensation has a dual function: the satisfaction of obtaining justice against a defendant and the plaintiff being compensated to the value of their loss. Nonetheless, debate[34] currently surrounds the issue of deducting collateral damages that might already have been paid to the plaintiff, the intention being that the plaintiff should be left in the position they were in before the liability occurred according to the precepts of common law as ruled in British Transport Commission v Gourley[35]. It was recognised in Parry v Cleaver[36] that common law offers no recognition of prior benefits being deducted or not with it being left to the courts’ discretion to rule in accordance with â€Å"justice, reasonableness and public policy†[37] and, despite the law of tort remaining at variance with any of the more updated methods of compensation, its procedures continue to be an important way of recompensing for loss with the result that collateral compensati on often results in a breach of the doctrine of unjust enrichment, as revealed in British Transport Commission v Gourley: â€Å"it is a universal rule that the plaintiff cannot recover more than he has lost†¦Before Gourley’s case it was well established that there was no universal rule with regard to sums which came to the plaintiff as a result of the accident but which would not have come to him but for the accident†[38]. This ruling was later upheld in Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd[39] due, in part, to Lord Bridge’s view that the tortfeasor should not benefit because the plaintiff had paid insurance premiums or received other payments as the result of charity, i.e. an award of damages having a deterrent effect through the defendant having to pay compensation, highlighted in the case of Redpath v Belfast and County Down Railway[40], although this was later superseded by British Transport Commissioners v Gourley[41]. When Browning v War Office[42] was heard in the Court of Appeal it was noted that: â€Å"whether the policy of the common law in these types of actions is to provide restitution for the plaintiff or to visit retribution on the defendant?†[43]. CONCLUSION Insurance law does not necessarily correlate with the principles of common law, with indemnity considered to be non-deductible due to a variety of reasons, part of which appears to be a reflection on the courts’ attitude to social policy. It was ruled in the case of Caledonia North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Co[44], i.e. Caledonia North Sea Limited (Respondents) v British Telecommunications Plc (Appellants) (Scotland) and Others[45]: â€Å"insurance company recoveries, under their right of subrogation, most often flow from tort actions is quite natural, but without significance. Subrogation is an equitable principle and applies to contract rights as fully as it does to tort actions†¦ The insurer is subrogated to appellant's contract right of indemnity. This sustains the cause of action against appellant for the identical reason that subrogation sustains a tort action where the plaintiff has been paid for his loss† The case of Parry v Cleaver[46], decided in the House of Lords, illustrates the incongruous situation of continuing to recognise the doctrine of subrogation in insurance, recognised by both insurers and the courts as being wasteful and no longer serving any useful purpose, with both the opportunity and the possibility of various unfortunate results emerging from this practice continuing, the concept of insurance having diminished the influence tort alone now has in terms of restitution[47]. Insurance companies now reimburse up to 94% of all damages and 88% of all claims in tort through insurance premiums that have been pre-paid[48]. The law of restitution or quasicontract is recognised at common law rather than contractual remedies or remedies at tort. However, evidence provided by case law suggests that the circumstances in which these remedies are applied is reliant on a specific set of principles[49] and there appears to be considerable doubt as to the criteria for subrogation allowed to be applied, with it being suggested that applying it arbitrarily was unacceptable – it should be a â€Å"matter of principle†[50]. The definitive case that has been acknowledged as introducing the law of restitution into case law was Moses v Macferlan[51]. â€Å"The law of restitution is the law relating to all claims†¦which are founded upon the principle of unjust enrichment†[52]. It has been claimed that ‘federal class actions have tripled over the past 10 years’ represented by a burgeoning escalation of over 1000%[53] and is contributing to an incipient damage to the US economy with ‘litigation costs increased at four times the growth of the overall economy’[54]. Krauss observes that the law of tort is ‘not insurance against unfortunate losses†¦[it]†¦does not exist to protect against risks’. As he clarifies, the competitive nature of the insurance industry enables premiums paid by policy holders to cover the cost of most claims[55]. In the US this may be achieved through social insurance, welfare payments and tax law or by way of private insurance, none of which had evolved to such developments as modern society enjoys when the cases of Castellain v Preston[56] and Darrell v Tibbetts[57] were being heard in the Court of Appeal during the 19th Century. Subrogation was ruled in Darrell v Tibbetts[58] as payment had been made for a loss which, in retrospect, was revealed not to have been a loss and, as such, the plaintiff was entitled to seek redress from the courts in order to be reimbursed for his loss. In Castellain v Preston, however, this was not the case and ultimately resulted in both sellers and purchasers, in effecting conveyance of property, to be required to insure that property against loss, an apparent example of a wasteful exercise. The ruling made by Chitty J was on the premise that â€Å"The contract of sale was not a contract†¦for the preservation of the buildings insured†[59]. However, it was also recorded that Chitty, J correlated ‘subrogation’ with â€Å"the insurers are entitled to enforce all the remedies whether in contract or in tort†, thereby paving the way to future confusion between when subrogation was an appropriate action and blurring the distinction between the law of contract, that of tort and that of quasicontract administered through common law. The case went to Appeal where Brett, LJ[60] interpreted simple subrogation as a doctrine of subrogation interchangeable with the doctrine of indemnity. The Law Reform Commission state that Brett, LJ ‘distorted the definition of subrogation so as to cover the case’[61] with the effect that it has subsequently been misapplied in many other cases[62], with its true application, equity, continuing to be incorrectly interpreted over the years as subrogation. The Commission states: â€Å"†¦its long-term effect has been to introduce a confusion into the heart of the law in this area which has rendered its workings obscure and which must be stripped away before the remedies made available†¦to enforce the principle of indemnity can properly be understood†[63]. This reinforces their view of sufficient welfare provision and private insurance cover to preclude the need to subrogate a claim against a tortfeasor. In accordance with this view, the doctrine of subrogation can no longer serve any useful purpose and, in view of the amount of waste in terms of litigation costs and courts’ time that results from this doctrine far outweighs its continued value or rationale. Total Word Count (excluding bibliography and footnotes): 3,000 words BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS: Beatson, J (2002): Anson’s Law of Contract, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Page 20. Bird and Hird (2001): Modern Insurance Law, London: Sweet and Maxwell, Page 256 Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990). Burrows, (1993): The Law of Restitution, London: Butterworths, Page 1 Goff and Jones (1998): The Law of Restitution, [5th ed]. London: Sweet and Maxwell, Page 3 Krauss, Michael I (1992): Tort Law and Private Ordering, USA: St Louis University Press Mitchell, Charles (1994): The Law of Subrogation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Page 4 Oxford English Dictionary, The Compact Edition ( Oxford, 1987), ii. 3126 Virgo, Graham (1999): Principles of the Law of Restitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press ARTICLES: Barker, (1995): Unjust Enrichment: containing the beast. In OJLS, 15, 457,473 Barker, (1998): Rescuing Remedialism in Unjust Enrichment Law: why remedies are right. In CLJ, 57, 301. Birds, John: Contractual subrogation in insurance. [1979] JBL 124, Pages 132 133 Connor, Martin F (2000, October): Taming the Mass Tort Monster, In the National Legal Centre for the Public Interest, Page 4 Hasson, Reuben: Subrogation in insurance law a critical evaluation. [1985] 5 Oxford J Legal Stud 416, Page 425 428 HMSO: Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury [UK Pearson Commission (1978, Vol. 2, para. 509) [Cmnd 7054] Law Reform Commission CONSULTATION PAPER ON COLLATERAL BENEFITS (LRC CP 15 1999) Dublin: IPC House ONLINE RESOURCES (Site visited 25/05/05. Hyperlinks functioning) Krauss, Michael I (2004): Medical Malpractice: is it time for Tort Reform in Maryland, USA?: The Maryland Public Policy Institute http://www.mdpolicy.org/research/health/MDMedMal.pdf Parsons, Chris (2002): Moral Hazard and Behavioural Aspects of Liability Insurance. http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:VR1wzB7SfwEJ:www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/cris/ukec/2002paper5.doc+Pearson+Commission%2Binsurance%2Bclaims%2B88%25%2Btort+hl=en TABLE OF CASES: British Transport Commission v Gourley [1956] AC 185, [1955] 3 All ER 796, [1956] 2 WLR 41, 2 Lloyd's Rep 475, 34 ATC 305, [1955] TR 303, 49 RIT 11 Browning v War Office and Another [1960 B. No. 3080] [COURT OF APPEAL] [1963] 1 QB 750 Caledonia North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Co [2000] Lloyd's Rep IR 249 Campbell Auto Finance Co v. Warren [ 1933] 4 DLR 509 at 515 Canadian Johns Manville Co Ltd [1969] 39 WWR 680 at 681 Castellain v Preston Others [1881-1885] All ER Rep 493 Castellain v Preston and Others [1882] 8 QB D 613 (April 4) Castellain v Preston and Others [1883]11 QB D 380 (March, 12) Commercial Union Ass Co v Lister (1874)LR 9 Ch 483 Darrell v Tibbetts (Court of Appeal) 5 QB D 560 Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd [1988] 1 AC 514, [1988] 1 All ER 541, [1988] 2 WLR 266, [1988] ICR 259, [1988] IRLR 167 Leppard v Excess Insurance Co Ltd [1979] 2 All ER 668, [1979] 1 WLR 512, [1979] 2 Lloyd's Rep 91, 2 ILR 107, 250 EG 751, [1979] EGD 246 Lipkin Gorman (A Firm) v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548, 578 Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25, 39 Morrison and Morrison v. Canadian Surety Co, n. 4 above, at 86 per Coyne, JA Moses v Macferlan [1776] 2 Burr. 1005, 1012; 97 ER 976, 981 Napier v Hunter [1993] 2 WLR 42: Lord Napier and Ettrick and Another v Hunter and Others and Lord Napier and Ettrick v RF Kershaw Ltd and Others [Consolidated Appeals] HL [1993] AC 713 Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd and Others [ 1978] AC 95, [1977] 3 All ER 1, [1977] 3 WLR 229, 36 P CR 1 Page v Scottish Insurance Corporation Ltd; Forster v Page (Court of Appeal) [1929] 33 Ll.L Rep. 134 Parry v Cleaver (House of Lords) [1970] AC 1, [1969] 1 All ER 555, [1969] 2 WLR 821, [1969] 1 Lloyd's Rep 183, 6 KIR 265, (48 MLR 20) Phoenix Assurance Co v Spooner [1905] 2 KB 753 Rayner v Preston (1881) 18 Ch D 1 Regal Films [1946 OCA] Reynolds and Anderson v Phoenix Assurance Co Ltd and Others (Queen’s Bench Division) [1978] 2 Lloyd's Rep 440 2 ILR 75, 3 ILR 51, 247 EG 995, [1978] EGD 172 Re TH Knitwear (Wholesale) Ltd [ 1988] Ch 275 at 286 Richard Aubrey Film Productions Ltd v Graham [1960] QB 2 Lloyd's Rep 101 Scottish Union National Insurance Co v Davis [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 Sprung v Royal Insurance (UK) Ltd [1999] Lloyd's Rep IR 111, (Transcript: Smith Bernal) West of England Fire Insurance Co v Isaacs (Court of Appeal) [1895 1899] All ER Rep 683 Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595, 2002 SCC 18 Yorkshire Insurance Co Ltd v Nisbet Shipping Co Ltd (Queen’s Bench) [1962] 2 QB 330, [1961] 2 All ER 487, [1961] 2 WLR 1043, [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 479 1 Footnotes [1] Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25, 39 [2] Concept introduced in by Court of Appeal in the cases of Darrell v Tibbetts [1880] (Court of Appeal) 5 QB D 560 and Castellain v. Preston, ( 1883) 11 QBD 380 [3] The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary ( Oxford, 1987), ii. 3126 [4] Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990). [5] Orakpo v. Manson Investments Ltd [ 1978] AC 95 at 112, per Lord Edmund-Davies [6] Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [ 1978] AC 95 per Lord Diplock [7] Beatson, J (2002): Anson’s Law of Contract, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Page 20. [8] Bird and Hird (2001): Modern Insurance Law, London: Sweet and Maxwell, Page 256 believe that â€Å"It may be that there is no general continuing duty of utmost faith†¦Ã¢â‚¬  [9] West of England Fire Insurance Co v Isaacs [1897] 1 QB 226 [10] Phoenix Assurance Co v Spooner [1905] 2 KB 753 [11] Page v Scottish Insurance Corporation [1929] 98 LJKB 308 [12] Rayner v Preston (1881) 18 Ch D 1 [13] Mitchell, Charles (1994): The Law of Subrogation. Contributors. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Page 4 [14] [ 1978] AC 95 per Lord Diplock [15] Darrell v Tibbetts [1880] (Court of Appeal) 5 QB D 560 [16] [1962] 2 QB 330 [17] [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 [18] Leppard v Excess Insurance Co Ltd [1979] 2 All ER 668, [1979] 1 WLR 512, [1979] 2 Lloyd's Rep 91, 2 ILR 107, 250 EG 751, [1979] EGD 246 [19] ibid [20] [1999] Lloyd's Rep IR 111 [21] Sprung v Royal Insurance (UK) Ltd [1999] Lloyd's Rep IR 111, per Hedley, J [22] [1960] QB 2 Lloyd's Rep 101 [23] [1978] QB 2 Lloyd's Rep 440 [24] Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [ 1978] AC 95 per Lord Diplock [25] [ 1988] Ch 275 at 286, per Slade LJ [26] Campbell Auto Finance Co v. Warren [ 1933] 4 DLR 509 at 515, per Masten JA [27] [1969] 39 WWR 680 at 681, per Friesen DCJ [28] Barker, (1995): Unjust Enrichment: containing the beast. In OJLS, 15, 457,473 [29] Burrows, (1993): The Law of Restitutio

Technological Advancement in the US Military Essay -- United States Mi

Technological Advancement in the US Military Since its declaration of independence from Great Britain, the United States has experienced wars of many different sorts. Each war introduced a new kind of warfare. The Revolutionary War introduced for the first time in American history, the idea of naval warfare. Ships were armed with dozens guns and carried several dozens of men. The musket, armed with its bayonet as well as the cannon proved to be worthy weaponry advancements in the infantry together with various pistols. The Civil War introduced the revolving pistol as well as the Gatling gun which enabled soldiers to produce rapid fire and destroy enemies in large quantities with a single round. New technological advancements in transportation such as the railroad, enabled large quantities of troops to travel to a given area in nearly half the amount of time. However, the turn of the twentieth introduced new technological advancements in the country as well as the military. This ignited a century of technological advancements in the military that has enabled the United States to excel in militaristic domination. The first war to use significant technological advancement was World War I. Despite the introduction of trench warfare (in which troops dug bases many feet deep into the ground and fought only on the surface), the art of battle would forever be changed. There were many different types of weaponry advancements experienced in World War I. Machine guns were built twice more powerful than in the Civil War, firing up to 600 bullets a minute which was the equivalent of 250 riflemen. Artillery experienced a massive technological progression with the building of several thousands of powerful cannons with shells filled with ... ...ccomplishments. As the years progress, just as they have in the past, so will military technology. Not more 80 years ago, the United States was just learning how to se machine guns. Not more than 60 years ago, the United States was just learning how to use tanks and artillery. Nowadays, the US military has become the leading war machine in all aspects of warfare including weapons, computer technology and biological as well as chemical warfare. God only knows what advancements are to come our way. Works Cited * www.archives.gov/research/military/navy-ships/sailing-ships.html * www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/tactics.html * www.revision-notes.couk/revision/927.html * www.channel4.com/histroy/microsites/w/wwzweapons.html * www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/weapons.html * www.science.howstuffworks.com/surveillance-stealth-channel

The protestant ethic :: essays research papers

Who would probably get the six hours of leisure, a Protestant or a Catholic? The Protestant group is mostly made up of the Northern European descent. The Catholic group comes mostly from the Southern European descent. Supposedly The Northern group was a little more advanced than the Southern group. The Catholics created less industrialized products, while the Protestants created highly advanced things which allowed their industrial lives to prosper. To me this sounds a lot like who is better the light skinned whites are the darker skinned whites. I mean I understand the facts as to what advancements actually came from a certain place but I think that no one Protestant was actually better than another Catholic. One could argue that maybe the Protestant group is a more advanced group because perhaps they have a personal relationship with God and the Catholic group doesn’t. Is that why the Catholic group isn’t as â€Å"blessed† as the Protestants? I mean you could really make up a lot of arguments as to why that is the way that it is. I mean today it is still like this in the world. Guess what the North Americans are a lot more advanced than the Southern Americans. Hmm?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"Status is something people aspire to, even if they don’t have the means to achieve it†, (Fancy). Could this mean that the Northern Europeans didn’t have the means to achieve things such as the Protestant did? Why did the Protestants have the means and where did they get them from, was it from God? â€Å"People saw that social mobility was possible for themselves.†(Fancy). â€Å"Hard work was an acceptable means to achieve it† (Fancy). Did the Southern Europeans really work as hard as the Protestants? Maybe the Protestants worked 50 hours more than the Catholics and maybe that is why they seem to have created more of a industrialized nation. I have just listed at least three reasons as to why the Northerners where so much more â€Å"better off†, than the Southerners. I know that Weber also kind of felt the way that I do about this having to really boil down to what spiritual beliefs played a role in who was to be more successful. â€Å"Spirit†, which had its roots from the Protestantism could not have grown in the modern capitalistic world. Weber believed that Europe was already acquainted with capitalism before the Protestant revolt. For a good century or so capitalism had been a growing monster.

Planned Parenthood Essay

Planned parenthood is a luxury to the new generation. When our parents had children, it was not a decision; it was a moral â€Å"duty† to society. To further analyze the individual factors of planned parenthood you must draw on the larger religious, social, and economic factors that guide your individual decisions (Mills, 1959). If one considers the broad social factors that shape, influence, and allow individual choices, you are using what C. Wright Mill’s called the Sociological Imagination (Appelbaum and Chambliss, 1997). The insight provided by the Sociological Imagination brings new understanding to this particular event, the planning of parenthood. The choice to bare children was never a topic for conversation in past generations. Religion as an institution had greater influence than it does in modern society. Families of the past were expected to follow religious teaching and were manipulated by the sociological expectations of the family definition. Birth control and abortion were â€Å"taboo† and social norms demonstrated the influence of religion in society. Nowadays abortion clinics are common ground and â€Å"the pill† is the topic in high school settings. Due to today’s norms, most people are not following the old religious standards of â€Å"go forth and multiply†; they have new wants and desires. Religious beliefs that were the core of cultural values became second to scientific research and renovation. The focus of society shifted from the unknown and unexplained to the known and scientifically proven. Technology and medicine modernized sociological institutions; what was â€Å"taboo† became the social norm. The possibility of genetic testing, the development of the birth control pill, and government legislation of â€Å"pro-choice† allow individuals to have choices on parenthood. Technology, which we cannot control as individuals, creates individualism, free will, and personal disclosure from what was once considered a social â€Å"duty† or basic â€Å"human nature.† Social roles of men and women have a deep impact on personal decisions as well. Society expected men and women to get married, have children, and live a healthy life as husband and wife. Parenthood was not an option; it was a task in fulfilling your â€Å"social role† (Appelbaum and Chambliss, 1997). Men were â€Å"bread winners† and women â€Å"house makers† united by the family  institution. The role of men was to provide the family with comfortable living resources and protect them from harm. They were rough, tough, and above all, had the education to succeed in the workforce. Women were the heart of the family, the nurtures, the caregivers, the mothers and wives. They were neglected the educational resources needed to succeed in the workforce and the bare thought of a working mother was absurd. Now, with the high standards of family life, women are likely to work in order to provide additional family income. Economically, a child is a large strain on finances. This has a large impact on the decision to bear a child. In the past, large families were normal because children were also providers of income; therefore, a large family meant economic security. The family worked to fulfill family needs not family wants. Working-class families did not have the economic opportunity of extra disposable income; they did not have â€Å"luxuries†. The foundation of the family was hard work and unity. Women worked hard in the kitchen, men in the field, and children with household tasks. Parenthood was not an option; it was an extra source of income and survival. Social structures have given way to personal choice. Planned parenthood is the result of structural renovation. One can now sit down and discuss the meaning of being a parent without feeling society’s pressure to have a child. The Sociological Imagination enables us to â€Å"grasp at the relationship between our lives as individuals and the larger forces that help shape them† (Appelbaum, 2001). It is the interplay of larger social forces that shape the choices individuals make. The decision to bare a child is the result of social-historical renovation that provides us with the notion that we have some control over our fate. Planned parenthood is now an individual choice, not a sociological expectation.

Pros and Cons of Computers Essay

During this time, there are a lot of changes that has happened to our world. New discoveries and inventions were found. One of these inventions is the computer. By this machine, our way of life and thinking have drastically changed. There are advantages and disadvantages of using this machine. For example, because of computers we can store data and make stay in its original state, like pictures, documents and other things. This was not possible in the earlier time. Because of it, we can store large amounts of data and make this data available for usage at anytime we needed it (Shelly & Vermaat, 2011, para.5). Computers have made information â€Å"immortal†per se. This machine has saved a lot of time for us, it has made processing, which took us ages to finish, done in a matter of seconds. This involves computing, organizing, showing images, recording and playing audio, and showing a video (Shelly & Vermaat, 2011, para.2). All these are simplified by computer in a quick time. In addition, this machine is very durable, it rarely breaks with proper care(Shelly & Vermaat, 2011, para.3). Even if computers have good to us, but it can also bring harm to us. Like the violation of privacy, many of us save personal information on computers, but there are instances that these computers be hacked by another person, and this person will can spread your personal information or steal your identity(Shelly & Vermaat, 2011, para.9). Also there is the health risk, even if there are proper position or usage of the computer, most of us tend to disregard these memos, and because of our ignorance and prolong use of computers we experience seizures, carpal tunnel and other disorders (Shelly & Vermaat, 2011, para.8). There is also the effect on our industries. Some tend to lay off workers, because this machine can do it more consistent and accurate than the average man (Shelly & Vermaat, 2011, para.11). The computer is great invention for of us, but we must control ourselves and acknowledge the disadvantage, not only the advantage. Gary Shelly and Misty Vermaat. Advantages and Disadvantages of Computers .