Spinoza Refuting Definitions free essay sample

In Spinnings ethics he provides eight deflations as well as seven axioms at the very beginning of his work. These definitions and axioms are set up In a way In which Spinal can formulate arguments for the proof of the propositions he later presents. One of the definitions I found surprising was the fourth one, which states By attribute I mean that which the intellect perceives of substance as constituting its essence. (peg. 31 is found in the beginning of Spinnings ethics.Based off his definition it can be found that it is not completely clear as to what Spinnings exactly defining because it could be taken in either one of two ways. The first being whether attributes are really the ways substances are or the second interpretation that attributes are simply ways to understand substances in a general sense, but not necessarily the way In which they really are. We will write a custom essay sample on Spinoza Refuting Definitions or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page For Spinal he believes that there are an infinite number of attributes, but there are two attributes for which he thinks we can have knowledge of; Thought and extension. The definition provided should be changed to clarify his meaning as this nominal definition Is later used In deflection SIX s well as In Proposition ten which Is subsequently needed for one of the key propositions in question(fourteen). I think the most surprising part of the definition is the way in which he uses the word intellect. For the intellect is one of the limited attributes we have access to, yet the intellect perceives substance, which is in itself and is conceived through itself.Spinal could change the definition to show the correspondence between ideas and reality in a more clear fashion;however, he does not do so specifically for the reason that the definition ought to be put this way in order to prove later propositions. I question why intellect Is the special thing that which perceives of substance, when intellect Is simply part of one attribute that we comprehend; thought. The definition should be changed to show that by attributes he understands them to be things In which we understand substances.For Spinal substance Is the conception of which does not require the conception of another thing from which it has to be formed. So the substance Spinal is speaking of is God, and he words it in a way such that it necessarily exists. He does this by establishing that no two substances can share an attribute or essence then by showing that since o two substances can share an attribute there must be one eternal and infinite God. Spinal would not be able to prove Proposition 14 which suggests that everything in the universe is simply God unless the definition in question were put the way it is.Proposition 14(better explain) is built upon proposition 10(define) which of course is built on the definition of attributes. Spinal would not be able to prove Proposition 10 unless definition 4 was put the way it is for he suggests that a substance can be labeled separate only by differences In their attributes of affections; that Is one God imposing of an Infinite number of attributes meaning them all, and thus solidifying the concept of one substance. The way In which he uses the definition Is necessary for his descript ion of a God that is a universal, transient and self sustaining cause of thought.So one quality of substance is extension, hence one of its essences is extension. So one of the ways in which our intellect perceives the essential constitution of substance is by it being infinitely extensive. Spinnings version of the definition is not necessarily needed to prove proposition 14 but is necessary for the roof of proposition 10 which subsequently sets up proposition 14. So what the definition of attribute does is to allow us to treat the attributes in a basic way that Cartesian essences or natures are said to be, while including what intellect perceives And the limitation on what intellect can do rather than a fact about how things stand in the rest of reality, thus making this a safe procedure for Spinal. Spinal explains attribute in this way because he has no other way of doing so. Spinnings version of definition 4 is needed to prove Proposition 10 because it lies in is proof of 10 which states, an attribute is that which intellect perceives of substance as constituting its essence by definition 4, and so by definition 3 it must be conceived through itself.Spinal might defend his version of the definition by pointing out that nothing in nature is clearer than that each entity must be conceived under its attribute or some attribute. Spinal would continue to argue that the more reality or being it had, the more its attributes would express necessity, eternity, and infinity. Thus, making his version of the definition necessary for the later propositions.

Thomas Cobb Essays - International Law, Secession, Cobb, Free Essays

Thomas Cobb Essays - International Law, Secession, Cobb, Free Essays Thomas Cobb When Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, Thomas Cobb realized that the South had suffered a major loss in power. Since the Republican party controlled the executive, there was no way the South could have any say in the government. All their opinions could be easily disregarded by the North; their neglect of the Fugitive Slave Law was a perfect example of this. Cobb also understood that the Northerner?s sudden patriotism for the Union was quite out of place. Only fifty-four years earlier, the New England states had threatened to secede from the Union if powers limiting the control of the government were not added to the Constitution. Sensing their loss of control in the government, Cobb felt the only option was to secede. Although this meant a loss of financial aid that comes with being part of a blossoming new nation, the economic repercussions of not seceding would be much worse. Slavery was an important industry in the South. Southerners used slaves to pick their cotton which was their main source of agricultural income. With the new Republican president, they became fearful that slavery would be abolished. Cobb also believed that ?the right to decide [about secession] is one of the ?reserved rights? of the states. He deemed that the sovereign states had the right to decide of federal laws were constitutional and that they had the right to secede from the Union. This, he felt, was implied in Amendments Ten and Twelve. This belief probably stemmed from the fear of tyranny that U.S. citizens felt after their liberation from England. Therefore, Cobb would support decentralization in the government. He also based this idea on the concept of nullification, which said that the states had the final decision on the constitutionality of laws. Cobb viewed the South as a minority who was being taken advantage of by the North. This angered him because he didn?t believe the government was protecting the rights of the states. Instead, they were caving into the extreme ideas of the abolitionists. As he was quoted in Freeling?s Secession Debated: Georgia?s Showdown in 1860: ...?while the constitution is full of checks and balances to protect the minority from the sudden and excited power of a majority, no provision was suggested for the protection of the majority from the despotic rule of infuriated, fanatical, sectional minority.? Cobb supported a system that would put checks and balances on the minority. In keeping with the spirit of the Constitution, Cobb argued that a state as large as Georgia, with more slaves, more people and more voters and more slave holders should receive more respect and have a greater say in the government. Otherwise, Georgia?s rights were not being protected and the concept of democratic America went down the drain. This was as good a reason as any to secede. Cobb asked, why should the South be bound to a Union that didn?t even uphold their right to liberty? By staying in the Union, Georgia would be letting itself be taken advantage of by a sectional minority. Therefore, the only option was to secede and preserve the state?s right to sovereignty.

The Agony of Vietnam Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

The Agony of Vietnam - Essay Example Most persons prefer narrating their ordeals from an optimistic perspective. Typically, knowledge from testimonies was obtained from some exceptional persons who represented a bulk of those who participated in the war, either directly as combatants or indirectly as supporters and protestors. As a thesis statement, it appears Vietnam War caused significant physical and psychological sufferings to Americans both at home and away in the battlefield. In order to understand events and experiences from Vietnam War, historians have preferred the use of oral interviewing techniques. Responses from such techniques are contained in chapter 10 of the book â€Å"Discovering the American Past.† The first interviewee in the book is a college student named John. When the Vietnam War commenced, the responded had just joined college. During that time, American armed forces needed more soldiers for the war. Consequently, there was a pending legislative draft in congress recommending for mandatory incorporation of college aged youth into the army. In case of poor college performance, one had higher chances of being incorporated into the military. Therefore, eligible college students had to keep their grades high or risk college deferments, which would inevitably land them into the military (Becker and Glover, 317). As the Vietnam War intensified, college students started engaging in deliberate debates. Some of them hailed from conservative families while others were from liberal backgrounds. Despite the difference in their family backgrounds, all the youth were forced into an era of awakening as they encountered realities from the real world away from the shelters of their paren tal homes. The second interviewee was also a college student named Johnson together with his college sweetheart Hanna. Both respondents are from an African- American community. During the war, blacks and the poor citizens in America were forced

Theory for Film Practice Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Theory for Film Practice - Essay Example Also, with the development in camera techniques and computer graphics, film and film production are not merely restricted to artforms any more; science has an increasing role in modern film making. Therefore, this institutes a new angle to the old debate: how exactly do we define film and cinema? This paper purports to present some arguments in the favor of film being both an art and a science, and tries to justify this stance through a detailed discussion and explanation. Film as an Art: film, and film production, were not always considered a form of art by the experts, and the medium of cinema was frowned upon by the traditional and more conservative critics (Prinz). For the masses, however, the case may have been different; film was entertaining, and artform or not, it was successful. Cinematography and clever camera work had given rise to the concept of motion pictures, or moving film (Deren). This meant that the audience could now enjoy the spectacle in real time, and could feel part of it. Film was revolutionizing in that it was entirely different from still pictures; whereas the latter afforded only two-dimensional entertainment and left much to the imagination, the former provided a more real, if only fictional, and more importantly, three-dimensional form of entertainment to the public which involved them and moved them and made them feel part of a larger-than-life world where they could forget about the real and engross in the world of reel (Metz). This acceptance by the public was generally referred to as mass media or art for the masses, and indeed, Noel Carrel, in his book Mass Art, did try to justify film as an artform based on this very public acceptance and demand (Prinz). The critics, however, differ from each other in their views of this medium. To begin with, let us observe if film can at all be qualified as art. Film has become increasingly more than just the visual recording of events and performances on reel (Prinz). Initially, some expert s were of the opinion that since it is a recording, the actual performance and not the medium of film is a piece of art. It was not until the concept of cinematography and set designing, with proper direction and production process were developed that it became clear that film is much more than a mere recording (Prinz). The advent of the advancements of editing especially led to this realization, as editing changes the entire perspective that is possible by simple recording (Prinz). So in Europe, and especially in Italy, film began to be called the seventh art (The Seventh Art). The verdict, therefore, would be that film is art. However, this statement is oversimplified and too generalized to be accepted, for it leads to the question of whether all genres and productions of film are art or is this designation reserved for selected works (Prinz). To tackle this matter from the layman’s point of view and from common sense, some films cannot be denied this status, such as Un Chi en Andalou, L’Avventura, Raw Deal, The Searchers, and Tokyo Drifter (Prinz). These films, although made for the masses and not just the selected few from the bourgeois community, retain the beauty and detail of a fine piece of art, and deal with the camera work and direction as artforms in their separate rights, so that the medium of fi

Change in the Chinese Economy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Change in the Chinese Economy - Essay Example The recent changes prohibit a third party to offer products in China for sale without the due permission of the patent holder. The people associated with the third party should not assume that they can go ahead and sell their products in China. Before this law was introduced, the companies' in the country were allowed to sell products manufactured in the other countries. This paper will examine the changes in the Chinese Economy over the past 6-7 years. A comprehensive analysis of the position of Chinese Economy will also be provided in this paper. The Chinese economy has witnessed tremendous boom because of the rise of 3 third party logistics in the country. There are several 3PL companies in China that are making huge profits operating in 3PL. Foreign 3PL companies have also started entering China to capture the share of profit and the same is boosting the economy of China for the last 6-7 years. The important features of 3PL industry will be discussed in the following part of the paper. Outsourcing enables companies to source in China without having their own warehouse and staff in China at very reasonable prices. Outsourcing gives access to better human resources, which are suitable for a given country in a given situation. For instance, even the people working in a BPO in the US would easily charge at least double the amount when compared to the people working in various Asian countries and this is exactly why the US companies have opened up various BPOs in Asian countries. Less Upfront Cost: Outsourcing enables a company to access superior technology without paying hefty amounts upfront. Though, this is not exactly the case with 3PL companies. But still, logistics outsourcing is preferred by countless companies worldwide and it has many advantages that we will account for in the upcoming pages. Innovation: Outsourcing is also preferred because it is an innovative concept and it is capable of innovation. Various people employed, bring in a huge pool of talent and the same talent produces innovation. Innovation is the need of the hour and no company can sustain without innovating something that will become popular with the customers. 3PL has been a very pivotal factor in the growth of the Chinese Economy other factors will be discussed in the following parts of the paper. Expansion of the Chinese Economy over the Last 6 Years The Chinese economy has become a force to reckon with over the last 5-6 years, it is only behind the US economy when measure in terms of Purchasing Power Parity. The economy is the third largest in the world if it is measured using the exchange-rate system. China holds the record for being the fastest growing economy over the last 5-6 years. The country has eradicated poverty completely but there is another side of this aspect, the country is witnessing inequalities in income of individuals. China's population is arguably its biggest asset; the manpower and cheap labor are the two most instrumental aspects that have made the Chinese economy what it is today. "China's economy is huge and expanding rapidly. In the last 30 years the rate of Chinese economic growth has been almost miraculous, averaging 8% growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per annum. The economy has grown more than 10

Division of Powers between Shareholders and Directors

Division of Powers between Shareholders and Directors QUESTION The orthodox view in Corporate Law is that the ownership of the company is vested in the shareholders, whereas the management of the company is the exclusive preserve of the directors. But this sharp distinction does not always apply in every instance. Discuss in relation to the division of powers between shareholders and directors. INTRODUCTON The principle of division of powers aims at separating the ownership and control between the shareholders and directors in a company. Historically, the directors have been viewed merely as agents of the shareholders of the company with whose actions they were to comply with. Later, the law moved towards the decline of the powers of the shareholder thereby making both the shareholders and directors an integral part of the company and they both having substantial roles in handling the companys affairs. This principle has been settled by Lord Clauson in the 1943 case of Scott v Scott, where it provided the constitutional provision regarding the companys management. This case established that the power of management was given to the directors and held that shareholders should not intervene in the powers of the directors.[1] This was also affirmed by the statement of Buckley LJ in case Gramophone and Typewriter Ltd v Stanley, saying that directors do not act as the agent of the shareholde r when carrying out his director duties of the company and under company law he does not owe a duty to the shareholder.[2] One of the main issues of company law systems is how power is allocated between the board of directors and shareholders in handling companies affairs. On several occasions, there is a need for an interference or there are situations where there will be an overlap of powers between the members and directors. These overlaps usually come up because of a disagreement between the shareholders and the directors as to what is best for the company. The power of the directors to manage the affairs of the company has been established by the principles in the decisions of the court and entrenched the shareholders with the power to vote, appoint directors and vote on matters that does not involve the management of the company.[3] This paper examines the situations in which the principle of division powers is not strictly adhered to, also looking at the law in this area and the possible troubles they can run into. It moves further to discuss the situations in which shareholders can intervene in the duties of the directors, looking at the issues of who can use the corporate name in litigation, considering the rule in Foss and Harbottle and its exceptions. It also examines the situation where the directors do not exist or in deadlock and cannot act, and finally looks at the reserve powers of the shareholders mainly considering their power to give directors instructions. SHAREHOLDERS INTERVENING WITH THE DUTIES OF DIRECTORS The legal powers to act on behalf of the company is available to the board of directors and these powers are fused with that of the company and are not allowed to exercise any activity the company cannot perform.[4] They are subject to the restrictions that the companys constitution places on the company. A common situation where there might be an intervention of powers of the director by shareholders is in a case involving the use of the company name in litigation. This can be found article 3 of the model articles for both private and public companies.[5] The decision to start or end a legal proceeding falls under the general powers of management of the companys business and these powers are reserved for the directors. Although it has been expressed in the model articles, this area of law has been somewhat controversial. One of the leading cases here is John Shaw Sons Ltd v Shaw[6], where Greer L. J stated that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦If powers of management are vested in the directors, the y and they alone can exercise power. Hes decision here means that the directors exercised their powers properly and that the general meeting could not usurp this power. Critics of the rule of division of powers have considered the view of Judges in older cases such as Marshalls Valve Gear Co Ltd v Manning Wardle and Co Ltd[7] where the members of the company made a claim in the companys name and the directors disagreed with their resolution and tried to strike out their claims but were not allowed. Based on the Companies Clause Consolidation Act 1845 governing statutory companies, Neville J concluded that the members had the power to make a claim in the companys name, with the aim of preventing directors from acting in a conflicting manner to the members ordinary resolution.[8] Breckland Group Holdings Ltd v London and Suffolk properties Ltd, which was of similar facts to the Marshalls case drew the curtains to the issue[9] and took the view that directors only should exercise such powers. Despite this law the shareholders are not completely without influence, they still have what we might call their most important power which is the fundamental right of the shareholders to dismiss the directors by an ordinary resolution. This provision was introduced in the Companies Act 1948 and currently available by the Companies Act 2006, s168. The purposes of these actions are to provide a guarantee that the shareholders can dismiss directors by an ordinary resolution and for the purpose of providing justice to the directors. The view that the shareholders can dismiss the director was supported in John Shaw case in the words of Greer LJ saying, the only way in which the general body of shareholders can control the exercise of the powers vested by the articles in the directors is by altering the articles, or if opportunity arises under the articles, by refusing to re-elect the directors whose actions they disapprove.[10] This process requires a special notice given to the directors as an opportunity for them to defend their case to the general meeting. These powers are very important to the shareholders as this means they have an effective method of handling the companies polices and activities of companys directors.[11] This is necessary as it provides the directors with a good reason to serve the best interest of the company after they have been appointed.[12] The other situations in which the shareholders can exercise managerial functions of litigation include a situation where the board is in deadlock and the exception to rule in Foss v Harbottle. BOARD IN DEADLOCK Under certain circumstances the members can carry out the duties of the directors. A situation where the board of directors are in deadlock and unable to act, or when their meetings are inquorate. In the case of Alexander Ward and Co. Ltd v Samyang Navigation Co. Ltd, this case established the principle of residual authorities in the absence of an effective board [13]. In this case the company articles stated that the companys business shall be managed by the directors whoà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦may exercise all such powers of the company as are not by the Ordinance or by these articles required to be exercised by the company in general meeting.[14] They argued that in the absence of directors, the company was incapable of taking legal action and this was rejected by the House of Lords. The principle of residual authority is important because it empowers the shareholders to make their own decision in place of the directors decision.[15] A similar decision to this was seen in the case of Foste r v Foster and it was established there that for the reason of transacting business the members can act as agents of the company in the absence of directors.[16] In the nineteenth century, there were the assumptions that the principle of residual authority in this area of law will be hard to defend but the more recent case of Barron v Potter has removed all doubts.[17] In Baron, the companys business was at a standstill as a result of the failure of one of the directors to show up at work. The decision of Warrington J stated that in the absence of the ability of the directors to appoint a new director in the present case, the companys general meeting has the power to do so.[18] RULE IN FOSS AND HARBOTTLE When there is an issue to be brought before the court, can the shareholders make a suit? The answer to this question was settled by the Rule in Foss v Harbottle and this leaves a negative answer subject to certain exceptions. The rule states that the court does not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the internal affairs of the company and in order to redress a wrong done to the company it should be brought by the company itself.[19] The rule makes provision for the directors or the majority shareholders at the expense of the interest of the minority shareholders. When the minority shareholder tries to bring a case to the court concerning wrongs done to the company, he is met with the defence that the company is the proper plaintiff or that it is a matter of internal management.[20] There are exceptions to the Rule in Foss and these rules were made to give the minority shareholders can have a chance to institute legal proceedings. The first exception to the rule is that of Ultra Vires and Illegality, where the act complained of is wholly ultra vires the company or association.[21] In this situation, a shareholder can bring action to the court when an illegal or some ultra vires act occurs. The shareholder can take an action for a declaration or injunction to retrain the act in question, for himself or he could represent the other shareholders on his side of the argument.[22] The second exception is that on Special Majorities, Where the issue is such that it could not validly be done or sanctioned by a simple majority of the membersbut only by some special majority.[23] In the case of Edwards v Halliwell, the trade unions rule required a two-thirds of majority of the members to increase subscription but the purported to do it by ordinary resolution. Jenkins L.J considered that a company in which its directors had broken the companys regulations by performing an act that requires validation by a special resolution without one. In such a scenario, the rule wil l not apply.[24] In the decision in Quin and Axtens, Ltd. V. Salmon, the rule in Foss was set aside, in this case the Article 80 provided that any resolution concerning the acquisition and letting of premises, should not be valid unless a notice has been given to each managing director. Salomon dissented from the decision of the directors but a simple majority of the shareholders passed a resolution confirming the decision.[25] It was held that Salomon had the right to an injunction to restrain the directors and the company from acting in a contrary manner to the provisions of the article, on behalf of himself and other shareholders on his side.[26] The third exception to the rule is that of Personal rights, where the personal and individual rights of membership of the plaintiff have been invaded, the Rule has no application at all.[27] The shareholders have right which are pulled out from the article of association and some of these rights are statutory which arise from the act.[28] In the case of Edwards v Halliwell, the court established that every shareholder of the company had personal right to prevent adjustments in rates of contribution to the trade union and in the case of Pender v Lushington, the articles enforced the right of shareholders to vote on company affairs, whether he votes in favour of the majority or minority, and an individual can sue in respect to this right.[29] The last exception to the rule will be considering here is Fraud by those in control.[30] This involves actions carried out that amount to fraud which is usually done on the minority shareholders, which is caused usually by an abuse of power by the directors.[31] The exception here has been made to protect the minority shareholders in which they can bring a minority shareholder action to the court on their behalf and on the behalf of other shareholders. Fraud can also constitute to what the general meeting cannot ratify. When a breach in fiduciary duties occurs, and cannot be ratified by the by the director it means that the director has acted in bad faith.[32] If a negligent act by the wrongdoers is benefited from, the authorities have suggested that it can be viewed as fraud on the minority.[33] THE SHAREHOLDERS RESERVE POWEERS The Companies (Modern Articles) Regulation 2008 applies to the new companies registered under the Companies Act 2006. It states out the division of powers between the members and the directors of the company. The Article 4 contains the reserve powers of the shareholders, stating that: (1) The shareholders may, by special resolution, direct the directors to take, or refrain from taking, specified action. (2) No such special resolution invalidates anything which the directors have done before the passing of the resolution.[34] There are certain obstacles that the shareholder may face in this approach. A possible setback could include the general meetings power to give directions to the board has been interpreted as subordinate to the powers of directors[35] as seen in the case of Scott v Scott where the constitution of the company gave powers to the general meeting to give directions to the board by ordinary resolution and it was held that the powers of the general meetings power doesn t qualify to the powers of the director.[36] It was also established that shareholders could give directions to the board but it does not have a binding effect. Gower suggests that the Article 70 of Table A recognises the general meeting may influence the future powers of the directors by passing a special resolution.[37] Does this means that by a special resolution the shareholders in the General meeting can restrict the future powers of the directors? Can the special resolution restrict or give a go ahead from entering a transaction? This has left many questions unanswered. Some have taken the view that the resolution of the directors does not change and remains valid as the directors resolution; the special resolution would only prevent the directors from acting upon it.[38] So, if the directors have come to a resolution of not entering a certain transaction, the shareholders under article 70 Table A could pass a certain resolution compelling them to enter the transaction.[39] The law in this area has often been criticized as being illogical because the law requires that when a director acts in an ultra vires manner these acts can be ratified by the shareholders but in a case where the shareholders need the directors to act in advance they must alter the articles of the company.[40] There have been some suggestions to this are of law, that shareholders may give directions to the directors to act beyond their powers, but within the powers of the company either before or after an ordinary resolution has been passed.[41] It could be argued that this will give way for an alteration to the articles by a majority vote. An example of a circumstance in which the directors act on the permission of the shareholders includes the allotment of shares. The section 551 of the Companies Act 2006 provides that by an ordinary resolution the members can grant this resolution even if the companys articles have to be altered in order for this to take effect.[42] CONCLUSION The lines between the division of the powers of the directors and the shareholders in UK law has been blurred and lacks a very sharp distinction. The law has experienced a decline in the shareholders power, though not making them powerless but compare to the directors their powers have been restricted. The area of cooperate litigation which has been settled as a management power of the director has made room for the shareholders in the exception to the rule of Foss and Harbottle, allowing the minority shareholders to bring legal action to the court on his own behalf and the behalf of those in favour of his decision. The removal of directors has also been one of their vital powers, when the directors have acted in a manner not at the companys best interest. In the absence of the directors or when the board is in deadlock the shareholders have the powers reverted to them and they can make company management decisions. The reserve powers of the shareholders have been argued to have substantial impact on the of the decision of the board where acting as a direct instruction from the shareholders or acting as a general supervisory set of rules. The themes discussed have demonstrated the approach of the court and law in this area of law, and show that the sharp distinctions between the powers directors does not apply in every instance. BIBLIOGRAPHY D. D. Prentice, Jurisdiction of Shareholders Meetings, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 5 (Sep., 1977), pp. 587-590 Elizabeth Boros, How Does the Division of Power Between the Board and the General Meeting Operate? Adelaide Law Review 31 (2010) p.169-185 Elizabeth Boros, How Does the Division of Power Between the Board and the General Meeting Operate? Adelaide Law Review 31 (2010) Griggs, Lynden (1993) The relationship of the rule in Foss v. Harbottle to the statutory remedies for minority shareholders. Research Master thesis, University of Tasmania. John Davies, A guide to directors responsibilities under the Companies Act 2006, Certified Accountants Educational Trust, July 2007 L. S. Sealy, Company Law. Power of the General Meeting to Intervene, The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Mar., 1989), Saleem Sheikh, William Rees, and Sheikh Saleem, Corporate governance corporate control (Cavendish Publishing 1995) Wedderburn, K.W., 1957. Shareholders rights and the rule in Foss v. Harbottle. The Cambridge Law Review, 15(1), 194-215. CASES Barron v Potter [1914] 1 Ch 895 Foster v Foster [1916] 1 Ch 532 Gramaphone Typewriter Ltd v Stanley [1908] 2 KB 89. Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd [1974] AC 821 p837 John Shaw Sons (Salford) Ltd v Shaw [1935] 2 KB 113 Marshalls Valve Gear Co Ltd v Manning. Wardle CoLtd [1909] 1 Ch 267 [1] Elizabeth Boros, How Does the Division of Power Between the Board and the General Meeting Operate? Adelaide Law Review 31 (2010) p.169 [2] Gramaphone Typewriter Ltd v Stanley [1908] 2 KB 89. [3] Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd [1974] AC 821 p837 [4] John Davies, A guide to directors responsibilities under the Companies Act 2006, Certified Accountants Educational Trust, July 2007 [5] SI 2008 No. 2860 (C. 126) [6] John Shaw and Sons (Salford) Ltd v Shaw [1935] 2 KB 113 [7] Marshalls Valve Gear Co Ltd v Manning. Wardle CoLtd [1909] 1 Ch 267 [8] ibid [9] L. S. Sealy, Company Law. Power of the General Meeting to Intervene, The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Mar., 1989), pp. 27 [10] John Shaw Sons (Salford) Ltd v Shaw [1935] 2 KB 113 [11] Farouk HI Cassim, The Division and Balance of Power between the Board of Directors and the Shareholders: The removal of Directors, Banking Finance Law Review 29 B.F.L.R. p. 154 [12] Ibid. [13] D. D. Prentice, Jurisdiction of Shareholders Meetings, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 5 (Sep., 1977), pp. 587 [14] Alexander Ward and Co. Ltd v Samyang Navigation Co. Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 673 [15] D. D. Prentice ibid [16] Foster v Foster [1916] 1 Ch 532 [17] L. S. Sealy, Company Law. Power of the General Meeting to Intervene, pp. 28 [18] Barron v Potter [1914] 1 Ch 895 [19] Wedderburn, K.W., 1957. Shareholders rights and the rule in Foss v. Harbottle. The Cambridge Law Review, 15(1), 195 [20] Griggs, Lynden (1993) The relationship of the rule in Foss v. Harbottle to the statutory remedies for minority shareholders. Research Master thesis, University of Tasmania. pp. 22 [21] Wedderburn, K.W, p.203 [22] Ibid. [23] Griggs, Lynden (1993) pp. 23 [24] Wedderburn, K.W, p.207 [25] Ibid. [26] ibid. [27] Ibid. pp 203 [28] Ibid. pp 209 [29] Ibid. [30] Griggs, Lynden (1993) pp. 24 [31] Ibid. [32] Ibid. pp 27 [33] Ibid. pp 26 [34] The Companies (Modern Articles) Regulation 2008, Article 4 [35] Elizabeth Boros, How Does the Division of Power Between the Board and the General Meeting Operate? Adelaide Law Review 31 (2010) p.171 [36] Ibid. [37] Saleem Sheikh, William Rees, and Sheikh Saleem, Corporate governance corporate control (Cavendish Publishing 1995) p. 22 [38] Ibid. [39] Ibid. [40] D. D. Prentice, p.588 [41] ibid [42] Ibid pp. 589

DNA Analysis: Validity And Doubts :: essays research papers

DNA : Criminal Identification Validity and Doubts   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  DNA, although controversial on accuracy, has provided a new means of identifying criminals where there is little physical evidence. This allows you to take a piece of hair, a spot of blood, or skin tissue and make a positive identification on a suspect. Since it's first use by the FBI in December 1988 it has grown to become a major factor in criminal investigation. This new key gives them help when the crime scene lacks evidence. DNA evidence also allows detectives to narrow down suspects and keep innocent people from being prosecuted.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In 1990 the FBI began development of a national DNA identification index. The FBI has received over 10,000 submissions of DNA evidence from police agencies and DNA evidence has been used in over 500 cases throughout the United States. The FBI performs testing for free to all police agencies to help keep costs down in prosecuting criminals. More than 50 laboratories perform DNA analysis around the US. The chances of two people having the same DNA profile is 1 in 50,000 all the way to 1 in 5 million according to scientists estimates.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  DNA controls all our inheritable information like eye color, hair color, skin color, etc. DNA differs in all people except for identical twins. All cellular matter contains DNA: this includes white blood cells, bone cells, tissue cells, spermatozoa, and hair root cells. Adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine are the building blocks of DNA strands which make up the letters of a genetic code. In certain regions of a DNA strand the sequence of genetic code is unique which allows scientists to identify an individual and exclude others.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The FBI, Cellmark, and Lifecodes are the 3 major laboratories that courts accept DNA profiles from. As estimated by the FBI, the chances of two DNA samples being the same is as low as one in a trillion. Critics of DNA say that the FBI has falsely applied theories of population biology behind it's calculations, so courtrooms make DNA seem inaccurate. More than half the states have a mandatory DNA testing of all people convicted of sexual charges and violent offenses, to help in future criminal investigations. Although some people say that this is an invasion of privacy, it's a good way to prosecute repeat offenders and find suspects when only DNA evidence is available.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As accurate as DNA profiling is, there are still many questions about the