Culture of the 1950s Essay

Websites allow global product and services distribution through intranets, extranets and internet Websites. Both groups of designers and professional analysts concur that a well-designed user interface is an essential component that improves the appeal and operation of the Web, allowing â€Å"browsers† or â€Å"tourists† to be converted into â€Å"customers† and â€Å"residents. † Recognizing demographic diversity and understanding the users are the two main focus of attention in the user-interface development process. However, these differences may demonstrate worldwide cultures in a global economy. The impact of culture in web content and tools is a factor which companies that aim to engage in online international business should consider. Few important pointers should be regarded. For instance, a person has a favorite website, how might this site be understood in countries like Paris, USA, London, Japan, or India, assuming that enough verbal translation are carried out? There might be something in a website’s metaphors, interaction, mental model or even the appearance offend or alienate a user. The date, most Culture of the 1950s is one of the controversial periods in American history marked by changes in worldviews of people and equal rights movements, new social values but old traditions dominated in the society. The World Wars had a great impact on cultural, political, social and economic life changing thinking and values of people. The post-war period of time became a watershed between ‘old’ and ‘new’ world of meaning, economy and ideas. Thesis The 1950s represents a time of disruption because the old values were rejected by the society but new ones had not been formed and accepted yet. The first half of the XX century changed greatly views of people and their destinies. The large-scale death and destruction exacted by World War II destroyed the security that had made current history a comfortable approach to international politics. The 1950s became an edge of the social change marked the beginning of the XX century. Such values as consumerism, trendy way of life and stylish goods were rejected by the society faced with grievances and disillusionment of war time (Fukuyama 8). Further support for the old social orientation to man’s impulses has been provided recently by a growing body of literature which seeks to document the innately violent and aggressive aspects of human behavior (Booker 34). In all these converging views of human nature, trust, intimacy, and openness are virtually self-destructive, and vulnerability and unguarded expressiveness become a positive threat. In this area, the puritan code was most explicit and ponderous. During 1950s, Americans did not have ‘a culture of consensus’ influenced by diverse social factors and liberation movements: the social life was influenced by feminist ideas and racial question. The second wave of feminism was diverse and involved lesbian, black, liberal and social feminism movements. Sexual liberation was a factor which had a great influence on the national idea during the middle of the XX century. Women paid particular attention to the role of sexual relations and sexual freedom in the society and their role in formation of self and universal order. Martin Luther King organized antiracial campaigns addressing a very important problem of racial inequality in America and its impact on the society. King expected that many people would â€Å"awake† from long sleeping and start fighting, because the established Constitution grants the right to the populace, and no doubt that in modern society the main role is featured to democracy and liberty. Social differences also influenced culture and led to the disruption (Booker 24). During the previous period, the good life consisted of work, work conducted with a religious attitude, for work was dedicated to God. The new way of liberation movements promulgated ideas of equality and equal pay for men and women contracted with the old values and norms (Fukuyama 237). Old social order and worldviews were rejected but the society did not create new values and traditions to replace the old ones. The puritan ethos in itself contained a number of crucial inconsistencies. They were exacerbated by the appearance of a set of values deriving from and entirely different source and based on an entirely contradictory set of premises about the nature of man. There were the democratic values founded on the assumption that man is innately good and trustworthy and that society is a contract among men that should enhance rather than restrain man’s humanity (Fukuyama 186). The themes of equality, social responsibility, democracy, liberty, and fraternity confronted the already internally conflicting themes of the world view and resulted in a dizzying welter of confusion and paradox. The internally paradoxical aspects of old views, combined with new democratic values together constitute anything but the disruption. In spite of the fact that some critics see 1950s as the ‘consenual period’, Derbyshire explains that The main reason the 1950s looks so good to so many of us is that in moving from the old order to the new, we lost much of our civilizational confidence. You may say that that confidence was misplaced, or an illusion; you may even say that it was obnoxious, and good riddance to it; and you may be right on all points† (Derbyshire cited Young & Young 29). American young people have inherited a â€Å"spurious† culture, a set of inconsistent arrangements and attitudes which have necessitated a variety of psychological and sociological stratagems aimed at disguising the basic lack of integrity and consistency in our culture. In the novel â€Å"On the Road†, Jack Kerouac vividly portrays this process through life and expectations of the main characters, Sal and Dean. Denial, self-deception, compartmentalization are some of the stratagems employed to cope with this disturbing state of affairs (Fukuyama 76). Kerouac portrays that segment of the younger generation was attacking the value orientations deriving from our puritan heritage. Such a direct and open-eyed confrontation was precisely what was necessary before any resolution of some of the inconsistencies can be attained. Sal says: I realized that these were all the snapshots which our children would look at someday with wonder, thinking their parents had lived smooth, well-ordered, stabilized-within-the-photo lives and got up in the morning to walk proudly on the sidewalks of life, never dreaming the raggedy madness and riot of our actual lives, our actual night, the hell of it, the senseless emptiness (Kerouac 208). It is just this resolution that the new generation were exploring in their alternative versions of â€Å"the good life†. The new generation interpreted the success goals of their parents as extremely constricting and threatening, and they were highly sensitive to the props adults use to buttress lives that were somehow less than fulfilling. Cultural diversity (and a new wave of immigration) added social tension and heated liberation movements. Perhaps the most interesting parts of the new ethic were themes which can be seen as not traditional or indigenous, that was the genuinely â€Å"foreign† elements, which because they were new arouse the most alarm, fear, and often repressive responses on the part of adults. The merchants of popular culture used the felicitous phrase, the â€Å"beat† generation, to refer to the group of people who celebrate the present and attempt to experience it as timelessly and intensely as possible. Being was desired for its own sake and becoming disappeared as a desired way of life (Booker 65). For instance, the novel by Jack Kerouac originated in racial fetishism and reflected vocabulary and language typical for diverse society and culture. Immigrants had an impact on literature and language using specific vocabulary and colloquialisms typical for their cultures (Nicholls 525). Another element which must be regarded as distinctly new was the attitude toward affluence, money, and private property on the part of these young people. Traditional adult success was regarded by them as â€Å"too expensive,† that was requiring too much sacrifice of the self, and of spontaneity, freedom and integrity, and giving too little in return (Fukuyama 270). In sum, the 1950s represents a time of disruption influenced by a mixture of the old and new social values. The decline of traditional culture encour ¬aged individualism which placed the self at the centre of concerns. Increasing social diversity led to a general relativism, not just in matters of taste or morals but even in matters of fact. These values were genuinely believed, there is no doubt, on the part of the parents, but the parents’ life experiences were so different as to locate them in a different culture. Life experiences were drastically different from the secure and protected environment before the WWII. The 1950s represents the disruption influenced by persona experiences of two different generations, cultural diversity and new social order. Works Cited 1. Booker, M. K. The Post-Utopian Imagination: American Culture in the Long 1950s. Greenwood Press, 2002. 2. Fukuyama, F. The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. Free Press; 1st edition, 2000. 3. Kerouac, J. On the Road. New York: Viking, 1957. 4. Nicholls, B. The Melting Pot That Boiled Over: Racial Fetishism and the Lingua Franca of Jack Kerouac’s Fiction MFS Modern Fiction Studies, 49 (2003): 524-549. 5. Young, W. H. , Young, N. K. The 1950s (American Popular Culture Through History). Greenwood Press, 2004.

Relocating Margaret Thatchers in the Workplace Essay

Working environments are dimensions in which the individual’s skills, talents and production capabilities are put into the test. The war-like situation manifested in corporate arenas continues to post a challenge to each and every individual. It is a legitimized jungle wherein only the strong remains and the weak perish. Thus, for every struggle that is addressed, this spells sweet victory for the triumphant warrior. It is for this aspect that Karsten described the workplace a source of one’s â€Å"sense of self, power and prestige (162). † As the individual continue to climb the corporate ladder, his or her â€Å"sense of self, power and prestige (Karsten 162)† continue to increase. This is most especially true in scenarios wherein leadership roles are assumed and performed. However, a critical examination shows that holding power, garnering respect and expressing authority have exclusively remained in the hands of men. The opportunity to lead has been an exclusive right of males and women, despite of the strong campaign to uphold equality, are continuously pushed to the periphery. Women leadership remains a critical issue in the corporate environment. Despite of the efforts to render equal opportunities to both men and women, the actions taken, remained futile. Women as leaders are still seen from a derogatory perspective. As Spade and Valentine described, work places are no less than â€Å"gendered institutions† that operate under â€Å"inequality regimes (341). † Under this context, it can be argued that the so-called â€Å"inequality regimes† mentioned in this discussion, is no less than the hegemonic and oppressive patriarchal orientations that are highly manifested in various work spaces. Drawing on Dahrendorf’s distribution of power and authority (Lemell & Noll, 52), it is evident that many working environments deprive women from having equal chances or access to positions that demand an exercise of power and control. Also, power legitimacy as for the case of women leaders are often questioned or blatantly ignored. While it is true that women have managed to acquire managerial positions, Ely et. al expressed that only 1 % of these females are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies or establishments (161). Likewise, Ely et. al mentioned that in terms of governmental positions and functions, only a small percentage of women can be observed. The seemingly under representation and to a certain extent—total absence of women leaders in the corporate world is triggered by society’s patriarchal culture. The practices seen in the business world reflect the manipulative and discriminating orientation of the patriarchal system. Under this context, societal roles and functions are highly determined by gender. Men are seen as the stronger sex whereas women are the exact opposite. Women are constantly confined into domestic roles. They are mothers and wives whose values and worth are best exemplified in the bedroom and kitchen. Thus, their entries into the workplace or business environments are often seen as a threat. In addition to that, this scenario highly contradicts the so-called â€Å"normative behaviors (Ridgeway 223)† of world. Leadership in business environments translates to performing firm decision, asserting authority and showing direct control, if necessary. Needless to say, these traits or characteristics are often played or portrayed by men. On the other hand, the idea of being a mere â€Å"follower† is relegated to women. Therefore, in the event wherein a woman leader practices authority, utilizes power and make decisions, these scenario is immediately dismissed as a violation of the canonical norms not only of the workplace, but also of the overall social structure (Ridgeway 223). The problem with women executives or leaders is that their socially-constructed roles are mixed with their corporate or work-related functions. The merit of their leadership skills and capabilities are based on how well they perform their overtly stereotyped duties and obligations. When women act like leaders, the patriarchal system immediately questions their efficiency via insisting the women’s highly biased and gender-based tasks (Ridgeway 223). As Ridgeway stressed, women leaders are initially seen as a woman, then a leader (223). Gender would always come first and leadership capabilities are only secondary. There are several ways in which women are prevented from acquiring leadership positions in the workplace. The first one is illustrated by the â€Å"glass ceiling concept (Goethals & Burns 77). Under this context, women are blatantly deprived of acquiring leadership positions via unequal distribution of chances and opportunities (Goethals & Burns 77). This is despite of eliciting commendable work-related achievements and success. The glass ceiling acts as a barricade that prevents women from being hailed as managers and executives despite delivering good results and performances (Haslett, Geis & Carter 128). In addition to that, it is also evident that women are placed into positions or departments in which they cannot possibly harness their leadership skills (Goethals, Sorenson & Burns 77). They are subjected into roles that do not engage into actual corporate management and decision making. Therefore, in the event in which women are recommended for promotions, their skills and experience readily lag behind. Or in such cases, a woman must shoulder the entire burden of exerting efforts and energy to prove themselves, but with no assurance that they will be selected. But then again even if some women were able to secure their positions on the corporate hierarchy, Goethal, Sorenson and Burns shared that this is no less than a defense mechanism used to avoid accusations of gender discrimination and inequality (77). Aside from the glass ceiling, the persistence of the seemingly omnipotent â€Å"old boy network (Goethals, Sorenson & Burns 77)† is also instrumental in the under representation of women leaders. A critical examination of the old boy network clearly shows the strong attempt of men to protect their own interests (Sanchez et. al 240). There is the intention to keep power in the hands of the few and eliminate new players. This basically explains the degree of favoritism in promotions. Men often receive high preference compared to women not because they are better or more productive. Instead, this is just a way to preserve the patriarchal rule. Since majority of senior executives are men, their power legitimacy is highly acknowledged and recognized. This kind of prestige is then used by males to control, manipulate and safeguard their interests. Thus, to ensure that their power and authority shall remain, these executives are more likely to choose male protegees—individuals, who like them, present a common set of beliefs, ideologies and value systems. Lastly, the limited access of women to building social networks lessens their chances of being corporate leaders (Goethals, Sorenson & Burns 78). Goethals, Sorenson and Burns mentioned that â€Å"informal gatherings† is a way for women to connect with other individuals in the business organizations (78). It is through these activities that women can further improve their social and communication skills—two of the most significant traits that leaders should acquire. However, these opportunities are hardly given to women. Other than obstructing women to create meaningful relationships and camaraderie, this scenario also inhibits females from having their own mentors and role models (Klenke 185). Mentors and role models serve as a support system. Through them, valuable knowledge and insights are shared and transmitted. Mentoring relationships help potential leaders devise sound decisions and appropriate solutions. Unfortunately, this right is highly exclusive to men. The struggles and challenges faced by women leaders in the corporate system is yet another gender issue that should be readily addressed. Leadership roles should not be equated to gender-based functions. Equal rights and opportunities should be provided to both genders and should not be an exclusive privilege of men. It should be stressed and remembered that leadership efficiency is determined by skills and performances, never by gender. Works Cited Sanchez, Penny; Philip Hucles; Janis Sanchez-Hucles and Sanjay Mehta. â€Å"Increasing Diverse Women Leadership in Corporate America: Climbing Concrete Walls and Shattering Glass Ceilings. † Women and Leadership Transforming Visions and Diverse Voices Eds. Jean Lau Chin; Bernice Lott; Joy Rice and Janis Sanchez-Hucles. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2007 Ely, Robin; Erica Foldy; Maureen Scully and The Center for Gender in Organizations Simmons School of Management. Reader in Gender, Work and Organization. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2003 Goethal, George; Georgia Sorenson and James MacGregor Burns. Encyclopedia of Leadership. California: Sage Publications Inc, 2004 Haslett, Beth; Florence Geis and Mae Carter. The Organizational Woman. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1992 Karsten, Margaret. Gender, Race and Ethnicity in the Workplace. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 Klenke, Karin. Women Leadership. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1996 Lemell, Yannick and Heinz-Herbert Noll. Changing Structures of Inequality: A Comparative Perspective. Canada: Mc-Gill Queen’s University Press, 2002 Ridgeway, Cecilia. Gender Interaction and Inequality. New York: Springer –Verlag New York Inc. , 1992 Spade, Joan and Catherine Valentine. The Ka

Should Be Single Sex Education

Children’s happiness is one of the the most important things when selecting a school. Equally important is finding a school that is inspiring. Parents also need to consider other factors such as letting them be themselves, academic skills and avoid sexual distractions of adolescence. Anyway, children have different needs and styles of learning. Thereby this essay will argue that schools should be single sex education. Obviously single sex education can understand how their students learn and they adapt their teaching styles to those specific needs.Some people believe that coeducation seems to be more realistic refers to provides greater opportunities for socialization. Besides the fact that children have different needs and the respect of personal differences. Directed intuitively and affectively oriented style of learning that fits most women never compatible. How to structure and practices that attract men single sex education helps teachers adjust instruction to male model and facilitate the study rounded up, unnecessary for boys to choose the course of the area they will produced.Keise (1992, p. 9) argues that single sex education has benefits for girls offers more opportunities to exercise leadership because girls have to hold positions of leadership in schools such as drama, sports, annual report or discussion of the team. It make it easier for girls to be leaders also boys tent to dominate and overshadow equally talented girls. Obviously it gives them expended education opportunities by allowing them to pressure non-traditional disciplines for girls suck as mathematics or sciences.Furthermore about emotion, single sex education puts less pressure on girls because girls are more prone than boys to suffer from low self esteem. This is clarified by The York Times Company (2010) who identifies the benefits of single sex education is mainly what you make them if your child learn to achieve his goals and is not afraid to compete if she knows that she ca n be whatever she wants to be, and you can attribute some of those feelings and achievement to the leanings environment she was in high school. Unfortunately the numbers schools with single sex education are small that it easy to determine simply.Moreover, boys and girls learn in difference ways. Boys use the brain for a given activity. In addition, physical differences lead to differences in the way boys and girls learn. Emotional activity is also processed in a different part of the brain. It has been suggested that girls respond more innately to literature. If the teacher understands how to teach girls, they will quickly feel comfortable exploring non-tradition subjects as mathematics, sciences, computers also technology and boys participate learn Lartin in single sex education. Moreover, Rowland (1974, p. 10) argues that men teacher teach mathematics and science better than woman as well as woman teach arts subjects better than man furthermore the mixed staff produce harmonious in the school. Furthermore, Mullins (2005) maintains that children in single sex education participate more in class, develop higher self esteem, score higher in aptitude tests, are chossing sciences and other male domains at teriary level, and are in more successful on careers. This research suggests that boys and girls have differences and there the best way to teach them is with different methods or environment.Children in single sex education provide parents with an opportunity can make more effectively the social development of their children. It makes more effectively the social development of their children. It makes an easier to study about sex education. Parents need their children are initiative to provide social development. Of course they should set opportunities for boys to mix a girls in family setting during childhood. If girls do not study in single sex education, it is quite hard for girls to have leadership skills. In addition, Gill (2004, p. 9) argues that â€Å" single sex schools are free from some some forms of sexual harassment and are not subject to the territorial defence behaviours of boy† that single sex education girls are free from sexual harassment that affects more than coeducation all girls can create a negative atmosphere against the influence of the media and often troubling depictions of women and girls. Moreover classroom is a place where girls of education and sense of self come before the environment that teachers feel the power an girls who understand the nature of intelligence alue and 100 percent for women and girls a strong 100 percent. On how efficiently a single sex education can also apply text information. girls and sex through peer pressure and young teachers not accord the lower value set for girls as opposed to school for boys other indicators lower than set of women key diagnostic tools (Mullins 2005). In contrast, coeducation in primary schools exposes all students to a range of male and female oriented learning experience. Important men and women are defined through social interaction play a valuable learning and sharing.Children learn through observation and interaction with other children and several behavioral characteristics that they bring. As parents, we quickly notice the negative behavior we want them, not the language as well, and tantrums. But the very behavior that they learn in classrooms is useful for children learning (Lingard 2009, p. 3). Similarly, Joined the School of Education for better social development between girls and boys. Students are confident in their school through communication with people.In addition, students are better balanced with the device make friends with counterparts in single sex education. The study shows that the natural development of friendships in the school coeducation and they have known better. This occurs because many social activities and clubs in the school girls and boys participated in a comfortable environment. There are also many complaints in school coeducation, which will benefit children. Children are free to choose subjects. Such as girls and boys will choose a topic that rarely exists in single sex Education. Children can develop greater capacity in any matter.Children can increase the knowledge of these subjects and to develop important skills. While Children will be able to increase capacity and confidence in expanding the range of future careers in these (The York Times Company 2010). In conclusion, school should be single sex education. The important thing is that single sex education is free from some froms of sexual harassment. Children should be allowed to be themselves, they can just be boys and not worry about girls and also girls can drop their inhibitions and begin to take risks. Moreover, children can develop better academic skills.If the teacher understands how to teach the children they will quickly feel comfortable exploring non-tradition subjects. In addition, single sex education c ould protect children from pregnancy. They can study about sex education in much more detail. Finally, if girls are not in single sex education it is more difficult for girls to have leadership skills so boys are not shown stronger performances such as music and art. Although, if children are not studying in single sex education it maximize contact with the opposite sex and others, to some extent, protect children from indulging in bad habits like.Bibliography Gill, J 2004, Beyond the great divide : single sex or coeducation? , University of New South Wales,Sydney. Keise, C 1992, Sugar and spice? : Bullying in single sex schools, Trentham Books Limited, Oakhill. Lingard, B,Martino, W & Mills,M 2009, Boys and schooling : beyond structural reform, Palgrave Macilian, London. Mullins, A 2005, The advantages of single sex education, view 17 April 2010, Rowland,R 1974, Mixed or Single sex school, Rotledge & Kegan Paul, London. The New York Times Company 2010, single sex education advantag e-the advantages of sex education, view 17 April2010,

Conflicts of Law Course Outline

2011 CONFLICT OF LAWS COURSE OUTLINE AND READING MATERIALS Books: Morris, The Conflict of Laws (3 ed. ) 1984 Cheshire and North, Private International law (11 ed. ) 1987 Collier, Conflict of Laws (1988) Reference: Dicey and Morris, Conflict of Laws (11 ed. ) 1987 Casebook: Morris and North, Cases and Materials on Private International Law (1984) Other works: Anton, Private International Law (of Scotland) 1967. Cook, Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws (1942) ; Graveson, The Conflict of Laws (7 ed. ) 1974; Wolff, Private International Law (2 ed. ) 1950. INTRODUCTION 1. Nature and Scope of the Subject Morris Ch. 1 (and 34), Cheshire Ch. 1 Collier, Ch. 1, 2, 21, 22 Anton Ch. 2. Mehrunnissa v Parves (1981) KLR 547 2. Reasons for the basis of the Conflict of Laws: Theories: Territoriality, Vested Rights, Comity, Local Law; see Davies (1937) 18 BYIL 49. Slater v Mexican National Rly 194 US 120, 126 (1904) Loucks v Standard Oil Co. of NY. 224 N. Y. 99 (1918). JURISDICTION 1. Preliminary Issues Patel v Singh (No 2) (1987) KLR 585 2. Common Law Position Morris Ch. 6; Cheshire, Chs. 10,11; Collier Ch. 6; Dicey, Ch. 11. (a)Presence, Submission, Effectiveness Colt Industries v Sarlie (No. ) (1966) 1 W. L. R. 440; Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein (1972) 2 Q. B. 282; Re Dulles (1951) Ch. 842; Manta Line v Sofianites (1984) 1 L1. R. 14. Union Bank of M. E. v Clapham (1981) â€Å"Times†, 20 July. Obikoya v Silvernorth (1983) â€Å"Times† 6 July The Messianiki Tolmi (1984) 1L1. R. 266 Williams & Glyn`s v Astro Dinamico (1984) 1 All E. R. 760. Kanti v South British Ins. Co. Ltd. (1981) K. L. R. 1 (b)Limitations Cheshire Ch. 13 British South Africa Co v Companhia de Mocambique (1893) A. C 602 Mackinnon v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Securities Corpn. (1986) 1 All E. R. 563 Ministry of Defence of the Govt of UK v Ndegwa (1983) K. L. R 68 (c)Staying of Actions Morris, Ch. 8; Cheshire Ch. 12; Collier Ch. 7; Dicey Ch. 13. (i)General St. Pierre v South American Stores (1936)1 K. B. 382, at 398; Logan v Bank of Scotland (No. 2) (1906) 1 K. B. 141; Egbert v Short (1907) 2 Ch 205; Re Norton`s Settlement (1908) 1 Ch. 471. Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein (1972) 2 . Q. B. 283; The Atlantic Star (1974) A. C. 436; McShannon v Rockware Glass (1978) A. C. 795; The Wladslaw Lokictek (1978) 2 L1. R. 520. The Wellamo (1980) 2 L1. R. 229. European Asian Bank v Punjab & Sind Bank (1981) 2 L1. R. 65. Coupland v Arabian Gulf Petroleum (1983) 2 All E. R. 436 (1983) 1 W. L. R. 1136 The Abidin Daver (1984) A. C. 398 The Jalakrishna (1983) 2 L1. R. 628. The Traugutt (1985) 1 L1. R. 76; The Forum Craftsmen (1985) 1 L1. R. 291. Spiliada v Cansulex (1987) A. C. 460. E. I. Pont de Nemours v Agnew (1987) 2 L1. R. 585; De Dampierre v de Dampierre (1988) A. C. 92. Ocean Sun v Fay (1988) 29 A. L. R. 9. The Francois Vieljeux (1982-88) 1 KAR 398, (1984) K. L. R.. 1 United India Insurance Company and Kenindia Insurance Companyv E. A Underwriter &Anor (1982-88) 1 KAR 639, ((1985) K. L. R 898 (ii)Lis Alibi Pendens St . Pierre v South American Stores (above); McHenry v Lewis (1882) 22 Ch. D. 397; Cohen v Rothfield (1919) 1 K. B. 410; Ionian Bank v Coouvreur (1969) 1 W. L. R. 781; The Christianborg (1885) 10 P. D. 141; The Atlantic Star (1974) A. C. 436. Bushby v Munday (1821) 5 Madd. 297; Orr-Lewis v O-L (1949) P. 347; Sealy (orse. Callan) v Callan (1953) P. 135. The Tyllie Lykes (1977) 1 L1. R. 436 Castanho v Brown & Root (1981) A. C. 557; The Abidin Daver (1984) A. C. 398; Metall und Rohstoff v ACLI Metals (1984) 1 L1. R. 598; Societe N. I. Aerospitiale v Lee Kui Jak (1987) A. C. 871; South Carolina v Ass. de Zeven Provincien (1987) A. C. 24; Meadows Insurance v Ins. Corp. of Ireland (1989) 2 L1. R. 298; Pont de Nemours v Agnew (1988) 2 L1. R. 240; A-G v Arthur Anderson (1988) `Independent` 31 March (iii)Submission to Foreign Arbitration or Foreign Court Arbitration Act (Act N0. 4 of 1995)); Law v Garret (1878) 8 Ch. D. 26 ; The Fehmarn (1958) 1 W. L. R. 159; Mackender v Feldia (1967) 2 Q. B. 590; The Eleftheria (1970) P. 94; Evans Marshall v Bertola (1973) 1 W. L. R. 349. The Vishva Prabha (1979) 2 L. 1. Rep. 286. Carvalho v Hull Blyth (1979) 1 W. L. R. 1228. The El Amria (1980) 1 L1. R. 39; The Kislovodsk (1980) 1 L1. R. 183; Trendex v Credit Suisse (1982) A. C. 679; The Biskra (1983) 2 L1. R. 59; The Hollandia (1983) A. C. 565; The Benarty (1985) Q. B. 325. The Atlantic Song (1983) 2 L1. R. 394. Kisumuwaalla Oil Industries and PanAsiatic Commodities Pte Ltd v E. A. Storage Company Ltd Civil Appeal No 100 of 1995 Naizsons (K) Ltd v China Road and Bridge Corp (Kenya) (2001) 2 E. A. 502 Friendship Container Manufacturers Ltd. v Mitchell Cotts (K) Ltd (2001 2 E. A. 38 Tononoka Steels Ltd v The Eastern ans Souther Africa Development Bank 2 (2000) E. A. 536 Indigo E. P. Z. Ltd v. The P. T. A Bank (2002) 1K. L. R. 811 Raytheon Aircraft Credit Corpn & Anor v Air Al-Faray Ltd (2005) eKLR (iv)Proceedings abroad Settlement Corpn. v Hochschild (1966) Ch. 10; Smith Kline & French v Bloch (1983) 1 W. L. R. 730; Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Ku i Jak (1987) 3 All. E. R. 510 British Airways v Laker Airways (1985) A. C. 58; Smith Kline & Bloch (No. 2) (1984) `Times` 14 Nov; Midland Bank v Laker Airways (1986) 1 All E. R. 526. 3. Statutory Position Service out of the jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Rules only with leave of the court: Order V Rule 21 a) General Principles: The Hagen (1908) P. 189; GAF v Amchen (1975) 1 L1. R. 601: Amin Rasheed v Kuwait Insurance (1984) A. C. 50: Spiliada Maritime v Cansulex (1987) A. C. 460. Mackender v Feldia (1967) 2 Q. B. 590; Evans Marshall v Bertola (1973) 1 W. L. R. 349; Attock Cement v Romanian Bank (1989) 1 W. L. R. 1147; Matthews v Kuwait Bechtel (1959) 2 Q. B. 57. b) Domicile: Re Liddell`s ST (1936) Ch. 365. (Ord 11, rule 4) c) Injunction: Rosler v Hilbery (1925) Ch. 250: The Siskina (1979) A. C. 210(CJ and J Act 1982 s. 25 ). X v Y and Y Republic of Haiti v Duvalier (1990) Q. B. 202. d) Necessary or proper party: Chancy v Murphy (1948) W. N. 130 Witted v Galbraith (1949) A. C. 326; The Brabo (1949) A. C. 326 Multinational Gas v M. G. Services (1983) 3 W. L. R. 492. Qatar Petroleum v Shell (1983) L1. R. 35. e) Contract: Finnish Marine v Protective Ins. (1990) 2 W. L. R. 914; Hutton v Moffarij (1989) 1 W. L. R. 488; Entores v Miles Far East Corporation (1955) 2 Q. B. 327: Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl (1982) 2 A. C. 34 Islamic Arab Insurance v Saudi Egyptian (1987) 1 L. R. 315; National Mortgage Co of NZ v Gosselin (1922) 38 T. L. R. 382; See cases on proper law of contract, esp. Amin Rasheed v Kuwait Insurance (1984) A. C. 50; The Magnum (1988) 1 L1. R. 47; The Chapparal (1968) 2 L1. R. 158; Johnson v Taylor (1920) A. C. 144: f) Tort: Handelskwerkerij be Bier v Mines de Potasse. (1978) Q. B. 708 Metall u Rohstoff v Donaldson Lufkin (1990) Q. B. 391. g) Land: Agnew v Ussher (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 78; Kaye v Sutherland (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 147: Tassel v Hallen (1892) 1 Q. B. 321: Official Reciever v Stype (1983) 1 W. L. R. 214. (h)Trusts: i)Administration of estates, probate: (j)Enforcement of judgement and awards 4. Brussels Convention (a)Objectives; comparison with common law: Berisford v New Hampshire (1990) 2 All E. R. 321; Arkwright v Bryanston (1990) 2 All E. R 335. Owusu v Jackson and Others Case C-128/01 Cheshire, Chs. 14, 16; Collier Ch. 9; Dicey, Chs. 11, 14. Part I. b) Interpretation: (Reference to European Court: arts 2, 3) LTU v Eurocontrol (1 976) ECR 1561; Bavaria & Germania v Eurocontrol (1977) ECR 1517; Netherlands v Ruffer (1980) ECR 3807; Gourdain v Nadler (1979) ECR 733; Bertrand v Ott (1978) ECR 1431; Somafer v Saar-Ferngas (1978) ECR 2183; Industrial Diamond Supplies v Riva (1977) ECR 2175; Duijnstee v Goderbauer (1983) ECR 3663; . Tessili v Dunlop (1976) ECR 1473. c) Sphere of application: civil and commercial matters (art. 1): LTU v Eurocontrol; Bavaria and Germania v Eurocontrol; Netherlands v Ruffer. Exceptions: De cavel v De C. (No. 1) (1979) ECR 105; (No. 2) (1980) ECR 731; W v H (1982) ECR 1189; see also The Deichland (1990) Q. B. 361. d) Jurisdiction (Arts 2-23): i) General rule: domicile of defendant (art 2); definition: (arts 2-3 The Deichland (1989) 3 W. L. R. 478 i) Special (concurrent) jurisdiction (Arts. 5-6) especially 1. Contract: place of performance of obligation: Effer v Kantner (1982) ECR 825; De Bloos v Bouyer (1976) ECR 1473; Ivenel v Schwab (1982) ECR 1891 Zelger v Salinitri (1980) ECR 89; Martin Peters v Zuid Nederlandsche (1983) ECR 987; Shenavai v Kreischer (1987) 3 C. M. L. R. 782 Tesam v Shuh Mode (1989) `Times` 24 October; Medway v Meurer (1990) `Time s` 7 May 2. Tort: where the harmful event occurred: Netherlands v Ruffer (1980) ECR 3807 at 3833; Kalfelis v Schroder (1988) `Times` 5 October; Bier v Mines de Potasse (1976) ECR 1735, (1978) Q. B. 708. Minister Investments v Hyundai (1988) 2 L1. R. 621 3. Branch, agency etc: Somafer v Sarr-Ferngas (1978) ECR 2183; De Bloos v Bouyer; Blanckaert & Willems v Trost (1981) ECR 819; Sar Schotte v Parfums Rothschild (1988) `Times`12 January. 4. Insurance (arts. 7-12); Consumer Contracts (arts. 13-15); Bertrand v Ott (1978) ECR 1431. iii) Exclusive jurisdiction (art 16) especially: 1. Immovables: Sanders v Van der Putte (1977) ECR 2383 Roessler v Rottwinkel (1985) CMLR. 806; Scherrens v Maenhout (1988) `Times` 5 September. 2. Companies or Legal Persons 3. Enforcement of judgment iv) Submission v) Contractual agreement (art 17). Elefanten Schuh v Jacqmain (1981) 1671;. Meeth v Glacetal (1978) ECR 2133; Salotti v Ruwa (1976) ECR 1831; Segoura v Bonakdarian, 1976 ECR 1851; Iveco Fiat v Van Hool (1988) 1 CMLR. 5757; Anterist v Credit Lyonnais (1987) 1 CMLR 333. National Law: Sanicentral v Collin (1979) ECR 3423 ; Ms Tilly Russ v Haven (1985) 3 W. L. R. 179; Other submission (art. 18) Elefanten Schuh v Jacqmain; Rohr v Ossberger (1981) ECR 2431; W v H (1982) ECR 1189; Gerling v Tesoro (1983) ECR 2503; Berghoefer v A. S. A. (1986) 1 CMLR 13; The Sidney Express (1988) 2 L1. R. 257. vi) Scrutiny of jurisdiction and admissibility (arts. 19-20) ii) Lis pendens – related action (arts. 21-23) The Nordglimt (198) Q. B. 183; The Linda (1988) 1 L1. R. 175; Gubisch Maschinenfabrik v Palumbo (1988) `Times` 12 January; Kloeckner v Gatoil (1990) 1 L1. R. 177; Berisford v New Hampshire; (1990) 2 All E. R. 335. viii) Provisional and protective measures (art. 24) CHOICE OF LAW 1. General Considerations Reading list: Kahn- Freund, General Problems of Private International Law Leyden, 1976 and 1980, 89-101 Wolff, Private International Law, 2nd ed, 96ff. Forsyyth, Private Interational Law, (first edition) Juta & co, 1981, 5-7. (2nd edition, 1989, pages 4-8) a)The History of the choice of law rule Lipstein, `Principles of the conflict of laws, National and International’ 1981, 1-46. Cheshire, op cit, chapter 2. Kahn-Freund, op cit, 97-101 Forsyth, 20-57. (b)Pleading Foreign Law The Evidence Act, section 60 A. G. of New Zealand v Ortiz (1984) A. C. 1 Vervaeke v Smith (1983) 1 A. C. 145 (c) Renvoi Kahn-Freund, op cit, 285-291. Anton, 55ff Morris, 469-480 Cheshire, 57ff Forsyth, 68-78. Munro, `The Magic Roundabout of Conflict of Laws’ 1978 Juridicial Review 65 Hicks, `The Lair Paradox in Legal Reasoning’ 1971 CLJ 275 at 284 and 289. In re Annesley: Davidson v Annesley [1926] ch 692 In re Ross, Ross v Waterfield [1930] 1 ch 377 Collier v Rivaz (1841) 2 Curt 855 Re Askew [1930] 2 ch 259 Re O’Keefe [1949] ch 124 Re Trufort (1887) 36 ch D 600 R v Brentwood Superintendent Registrar of Marriages, ex parte Arias [1968] 2 QB 956 Amin Rasheed Shipping Corporation v Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50 (d)The incidental question Kahn- Freund, op cit, 291-294. Morris, op cit, 489-492. Cheshire, Private International Law, 53ff. Forsyth, op cit, 2nd ed, 78-81. Gotlieb, `The incidental question revisited- theory and practise in the conflict of Laws’ (1977) 26 ICLQ 734. Schwebel v Ungar (1926) 42DLR (2d) 622 affd (1964) 48 DLR (2d) 644 Lawrence v Lawrence [1985] Fam 106 (e) Characterisation Kahn-Freund, op cit, 223-241 Cheshire, op cit, 43-52. Morris, op cit, 481-488 Falconbridge `Conflicts Rule and Characterization of Question’ (1952) 30 Canadian Bar Review 103 and 264. Anton,op cit 43ff Forsyth, op cit. , 59-69 Forsyth, `Extinctive Prescription and the Lex Fori’ (1982)99 SALJ 16 Forsyth, `Characterization etc’ (1987) 104 SALJ 4 Bennett, `Cumulation and Gap: Are they systemic defects in the conflict of Laws? ’ (1988) 105 SALJ 444 Ogden v Ogden [1908] p 46 Huber v Steiner (1835) 2 Bing NC 202 Re Maldonado [1954] p 223 Re Cohn [1945] ch 5 In re State of Norway’s Application (No 2) [1989] 1 ALL ER 701 (CA) and 745 (HL) (f)Domicile and Residence Morris, Ch. 2; Cheshire Ch. 9; Collier, Ch. 5; Dicey Ch. 7. Law of Domicil Act Cap 37 (i)Definition Whicker v Hume (1858) 7 H. L. C. 124; Gatty v A-G. (1951) P. 144; Udny v Udny (1869) L. R. 1 Sc. & D. 441; Re Annesly (1926) Ch. 692. (ii)Domicile of Origin Udny v U. ; Urquhart v Butterfield (1887) 37 Ch. D. 357; Re McKenzie (1951) 51 S. R. N. S. W. 293; Henderson v H (1967) P. 77; Re Jones 192 Iowa 78 (1921). (iii)Domicile of Choice Schiratti v Schiratti (1978) K. L. R 128; White v Tennant 31 W, Va. 790 (1888) ; Re Fuld (No. 3) (1968) P. 675; Bell v Kennedy (1868) L. R. 1 Sc. Div. 307; Winans v A-G (1904) A. C. 287; Ramsey v Royal Liverpool Infirmary (1930) A. C. 588; Ross v Ross (1930) A. C. 1; Buswell v I. R. C. (1974) 1 W. L. R. 1631; I. R. C. v Bullock (1976) 1 W. L. R. 1178. Puttick v A. G. (1980) Fam. 1. Re Furse (1980) 3 All E. R. 838. Brown v B. (1982) 3 F. L. R. 212; Re Clore (1984) S. T. C. 609; Cramer v C (1987) 1 F. L. R. 116; IRC v Plummer (1988) 1 W. L. R. 292; Re Lloyd Evans (1947) Ch 695; Tee v Tee (1973) 3 All. E. R. 1105 iii) Special Cases 1. Naturalisation: Wahl v A-G. (1932) 147 L. T. 382; Re Fuld. 2. Deportees: Boldirini v B. (1932) P. 9; May v May (1943) 2 All E. R. 146; Szechter v S. (1971) P. 286; Zanelli v Z (1948) 64 T. L. R. 556; Cruh v C (1945) 2 All E. R. 545. 3. Fugitives and Refugees: Re Martin (1900) P. 211; De Bonneval v D. B. (1838) 1 Curt. 856; Re Lloyd-Evans (1947) Ch. 695; May v M. 4. Invalids: Hoskins v Matthews (1855) 8 D. M. & G. 13; Re James (1908) 98 L. T. 438. 5. Servicemen: Sellars v S. 1942 S. C. 206; Donaldson v D. (1949) P. 363; Cruishanks v C. (1957) 1 All E. R. 889; Stone v S. (1958) 1 W. L. R. 1287. 6. Abandonment: In b. Raffenel (1863) 3 S. W. & Tr. 49; Zannelli v Z. ; b (1968) 1 ALL E. R. 49; Tee v Tee (1974) 1 W. L. R. 213. (iv)Domicile of Dependancy (see 37 M. L. R. 179) 1. Married Women: A-G. for Alberta v Cook (1926) A. C. 444; Re Scullard (1957) Ch. 107; Domicile and Matrimonnial Proceedings Act 1973, s. 1. Puttick v A-G (1980) Fam. 1. Oundian v O. (1980) Fam. L. R. 198. IRC v Portland (1982) Ch. 314. 2. Children: Johnstone v Beattie (1843) 10 Cl. & F. 42; Harrison v H. (1953) 1 W. L. R. 865; Potinger v Wightman (1817) 3 Mer. 67; Re Beaumont (1893) 3 Ch. 490; Hope v H. (1968) N. Ir. 1; Shanks v S. 1965 S. L. T. 330; Domicile Act, 1973 ss. 3, 4. 3. Insane Persons: Urquhart v Butterfield; Crumpton`s Judicial Factor v Finch-Noyes 1918 S. C. 378; Sharpe v Crispin (1860) L. R. 1 P. D. 611 (v)Residence 1. Habitual Residence: Cruse v Chittum (1974) 2 All E. R. 940; 24 I. C. L. Q. 1. ; Kapur v K. (1984) F. L. R. 920. 2. Ordinary Residence: Levene v I. R. C. (1928) A. C. 217; Hopkins v H. (1951) P. 116; Stransky v S. (1954) P. 248; Lewis v L. (1956) 1 W. L. R. 200. Re P (GE) (An Infant) (1965) Ch. 568. R v Barnet L. B. C. ex. P. Nilish Shah (1983) 2 A. C. 309. (vi)Corporations 1. Status National Bank of Greece and Anthens v Metliss (1958) A. C. 509; Adams v National Bank of Greece S. A. (1961) A. C. 225. 2. Domicile and Residence Ridsdon Iron and Locomotive Works v Furness (1906) 1 K. B. 49; Cesena Sulphur Co. v Nicholson (1876) 1 Ex. D. 428; De Beers Consolidated v Howe (1906) A. C. 455; Egyptian Delta Land & Co. v Todd (1929) A. C. 1; Swedish Central Rly v Thompson (1925) A. C. 495; Unit Construction Co. v Bullock (1960) A. C. 351; Gasque v I. R. C. (1940) 2 K. B. 80;. Shah v Barnet London Borough Council (1983) 1 All. E. R. 226; Kapur v Kapur (1985) Fam Law. Rep. 22 2. Substantive Choice of Law Rules (a)Marriage Bishop, `Choice of Law of Impotence and Wilful Refusal`, (1978) 41 MLR 512. Carter, `Capacity to Remarry After Foreign Divorce`, (1985) 101 LQR 496. Fentiman, `The Validity of marriage and the Proper Law`, (1985) CLJ 256. Hartley, `Polygamy and Social Policy`, (1969) 32 MLR 155; `The Policy Basis of the English Conflict of Laws of Marriage`, (1972) 35 MLR 571. Jaffey, `The Essential Validity of Marriage in the English Conflict of Laws`, (1978) 41 MLR 38; `The Incidental Question and Capacity to Remarry`, (1985) 48 MLR 465. North, `Development of Rules of Private International Law in the Field of Family Law`, (1980) I Recueil des Cours 17. Poulter, `Hyde v Hyde – A Reappraisal` (1976) 25 ICLQ 475. Smart, `Interest Analysis, False Conflicts and the Essential Validity of Marriage`, (1985) 14 Anglo-Amer L Rev 225. Stone, `Some Aspects of Fundamental Rights in the English Conflict of Laws` in Bridge et al (eds) Fundamental Rights (1973) London, Sweet & Maxwell, pp 232, 246-7; `Capacity for Polygamy – Judicial Rectification of Legislative Error` (1983) Fam Law 76. Brook v Brook (1861) 9 HL Cas 193 De Reneville v de Reneville (1948) P 100 Cheni v Cheni (1965) P 85 Lawrence v Lawrence (1985) 2 All E. R. 733 Re Paine (1940) Ch 46 Sottomayer v De Barros (No 2) (1879) 5 PD 94 Ogden v Ogden (1908) P 46 Vervaeke v Smith (1981) 1 All ER 55 Mohammed v Knott (1969) 1 QB 1 Pugh v Pugh (1951) P 482 Radwan v Radwan (No 2) (1972) 3 All ER 1026 R v Brentwood Marriage Registrar (1968) 3 All ER 279 Schwebel v Ungar (1964) 48 DLR (2d) 644 Breen v Breen (1964) P 144 Schezter v Schezter (1971) P 286 Way v Way (1950) P 71 Ponticelli v Ponticelli (1958) P 204 Berthiaume v Dastous (1930) A C 79 Starkowski v AG (1954) AC 155 Lodge v Lodge (1967) 107 Sol Jo. 437 Tackzanowska v Tackzanowski (1957) P 301 (b)Matrimonial Causes Forsyth, `Recognition of Extra-Judicial Divorces: The Transnational Divoce`, (1985) 34 ICLQ 398. Jaffey, `Vervaeke v Smith`, (1983) 32 ICLQ 500. Karsten, `Recognition of Non-Judicial Divorces`, (1980) 43 MLR 202. McClean, Recognition of Family Judgements in the Commonwealth (1983) London, Butterworths. North, The Private International Law of Matrimonial Causes in the British Isles and the Republic of Ireland (1977) Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Co. Stone, `The Recognition in England of Talaq Divorces`, (1985) 14 Anglo-Amer L Rev 363. Young, `The Recognition of Extra-Judicial DIvorces`, (1987) 7 LS 78. Schiratti v Schiratti (1978) K. L. R 128 Le Mesurier v Le Mesurier (1895) AC 517 Armitage v AG (1906) P 135 Indyka v Indyka (1969) 1AC 33 Re Meyer (1971) P 298 Salvesen v Australian Propety Administrator (1927) AC 641 Re Edgerton's Wills Trust (1956) Ch 593 Duke of Malborough v AG (1945) Ch 78 Cooper v Cooper (1888) 13 App Cas 88 Callwood v Callwood (1960) AC 659 Harvey v Farnie (1882) 8 App Cas 43 Travers v Holley (1953) P 246 Quazi v Quazi (1980) AC 794 Bater v Bater (1906) P 209 Kendall v Kendall (1971) 1 All ER 378 Merker v Merker (1963) P 283 Re Bankes (1902) 2 Ch 333 Re De Nichols (1900) 2 Ch 410 De Nichols v Curlier (1900) AC 21 (c) Contracts Cheshire, International Contracts (1948). Fletcher, Conflict of Law and European Community Law, Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Co, Chapter 5. Jaffey, `Essential Validity of Contracts in the English Conflicts of Laws`, (1974) 23 ICLQ 1; `Offer and Acceptance and Related Questions in the English Conflict of Laws` (1975) 24 ICLQ 603; `The English Proper Law Doctrine and the EEC Convention`, (1984) 33 ICLQ 531. Lasok and Stone, Conflict of Laws in the European Community (1987) Abingdon, Professional Books, Chapter 9. Libling, `Formation of International Contracts`, (1979) 42 MLR 169. Mann, `The Proper Law of the Contract`, (1950) 3 ICLQ 60 and 597; `Proper Law and Illegality in Private International Law` (1973) 18 BYIL 97. Morris, `The Proper Law of a Contract: a Reply`, (1950) 3 ILQ 197. North, `Varying the Proper Law`, in Multum non Multa, Festschrift for Kurt Lipstein (1980), Heidelberg, Muller, p 205. Pierce, `Post-Formation Choice of Law in Contract`, (1987) 50 MLR 176. Karachi Gas Ltd. v Issaq (1965) E. A. 42 Bonython v Commonwealth of Australia (1951) AC 201 Amin Rasheed Case (Supra) Campagnie D'Armement Maritime SA v Cie Tunisienne de Navigation SA (1971) AC 572 Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd v Xenakis (1982) 2 Ll Rep 304 Royal Exchange Assurance Corp v Sjofarsakrings Akt Vega (1902) 2 KB 384 The Adriatic (1931) P 241 Sayers v International Drilling Co NV (1971) 3 All ER 163 Rossano v Manufactures Life Assurance Co (1963) 2 QB 352 Coast Lines Ltd v Hudig and Veder Chartering (1972) 2 QB 34 Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd (1939) AC 277 The Iran Vojdan (1984) 2 Ll Rep 380 The Mariannina (1983) 1 Ll Rep 12 De Dampierre v De Dampierre (1987) 2 All. E. R. 1 (d)Torts Briggs, `What Did Boys v Chaplin Decide? `, (1983) 12 Anglo-Amer L Rev 237. Carter, `Torts in English Private International Law`, (1981) 52 BYIL 9. Fawcett, `Policy Considerations in Tort Choice of Law`, (1984) 47 MLR 650. Jaffey, `Choice of Law inTort: A Justice-Based Approach`, (1982) 2 LS 98. Karsten, `Chaplin v Boys: Another Analysis`, (1970) 19 ICLQ 35. Kahn-Freund, `Delictual Liability and the Conflict of Laws`, (1968) II Recueil des Cours, 5. Law Commission Working Paper No 87, `Choice of Law in Tort` (1984). Lasok and Stone, Conflict of Laws in European Community (1987) Abingdon, Professional Books, Chapter 9. McGregor, `The International Accident problem`, (1907) 33 MLR 1. Morris, `Torts in the Conflicts of Laws`, (1949) 12 MLR 248; `The Proper Law of a Tort` (1951) 64 Harv L Rev 881. Morse, Torts in Private International Law (1978) Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Co. North, `Contract as a Tort Defence in the Conflict of Laws`, (1977) 26 ICLQ 914. Clarence Smith, `Torts and the Conflict of Laws`, (1957) 20 MLR 447. The Halley (1868) LR 2 PC 193 Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 Machado V Fontes (1897) 2 QB 231 Mclean v Pettigrew (1945) 2 DLR 65 Mackinnon v Iberia Shipping Company (1954) 2 Ll 372 Babcock v Jackson 12 NY 2d 473 Reich v Purcell 432 P 2d 727 Chaplin v Boys (1971) AC 356 Church of Scientology of California v Metropolitan Police Commr (1976) 120 Sol Jo 690 Coupland v Arabian Gulf Petroleum Co. 1983) 2 All E. R. 434 (e)Succession Re Annesley (1926) Ch 692 Re Ross (1930) 1 Ch 377 Re Cunnington (1924) 1 Ch 68 Re Fergusson’s Will (1902) 1 Ch 483 Re Price (1900) 1 Ch 442 Re Lewal’s Settlement Trust (1918) 2 Ch 391 Re Fuld’s Estate (No 3) (1968) P 675 Re Schnapper (1928) Ch 420 Re Hellman’s Will (1866) LR 2 Eq. 363 Re Martin (19 00) P 211 Re Miller (1914) 1 Ch 511 Phillip- Stow v IRC (1961) AC 727 Re Collens (1986) Ch 505 Re O’ Keefe (1940) Ch 124 Law of Succession Act, section 16 (f) Transfer of Property Inter Vivos Davis, `Conditional Sales and Chattel Mortgages in the Conflict of Law`, (1964) 13 ICLQ 53. Winkworth v Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd (1980) Ch 496 Adams v Clutterbuck (1883) 10 QBD 403 Re Smith (1916) 2 Ch 206 Bank of Africa Ltd v Cohen (1909) 2 Ch 129 Bank voor Handel en Scheepvart NV v Slatford (1953) 1 QB 248 Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural and Poultry Producers Association (1966) 1 All ER 306 RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGEMENTS Morris, Ch. 9; Cheshire Ch. 15; Collier Ch. 8; Dicey, Ch. 14; Anton, Ch. 26; . 1. Recognition /Enforcement 2. Enforcement of Judgements in personam a) Action of judgement at Common Law Grant v Easton (1883) 13 Ch. D. 302 (GA) (b)Registration under Statute Foreign Judgements Reciprocal Enforcement Act (Cap 43) Trepca Mines (1960) 1 W. L. R. 1273 at 1282; Rossano v Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. (1963) 2 Q. B. 352; Sidmetal v Titan (1966) 1 Q. B. 828; Black-Clawson v Papierwerke (1975) A. C. 591. 3. Jurisdiction of Foreign Court Buchanan v Rucker (1808) 9 East 193; Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v Rajah of Faridkote (1894) A. C. 670; Emanuel v Symon (1908) 1 K. B. 302, 309. (a)Presence or Residence at time of service of process Carrick v Hancock (1895) 12 T. L. R. 59; Blohn v Desser (1962) 2 Q. B. 116; 1933 Act s. 4 (2) (a) (iv). b) Residence of companies Littauer Glove Co. v F. W. Millington (1928) 44 T. L. R. 746; Sfier v National Ins. Co. of N. Z. (1964) 1 L1. R. 330; Vogel v Kohnstamm Ltd. (1973) Q. B. 133; Adams v Cape Industries (1990) 2 W. L. R. 657. (c)Submission to Foreign Courts i) As Plaintiff: Schibsby v Westenholtz (1870) L. R. 6 Q. B. 155, 161, or as counterclaimant: Cap 43s. 4 (2) (a) (ii). ii) Contract of Agreement to Submit: Feyerick v Hubbard (1902) 71 L. J. K. B. 509; Cap 43 s. 4 (2) (a) (iii); Copin v Adamson (1874) L. R. 9 Ex. 345; Emanuel v Symon; Blohn v Desser; Vogel v Kohnstamn. iii) As defendant pleading to the merits: Cap 43 s. (2) (a) (iii); Copin v Adamson (1874) L. R. 9 Ex. 345; Emanuel v Symon; Blohn v Desser; Vogel v Kohnstamn. (d)Office or Place of Business Cap 43 s. 4 (1) (e) Italframe Ltd vs Mediterranean Shipping Co (1986) KLR 54 Gathuna v African Orthodox Church of Kenya (1982) KLR 356 4. Defence when Foreign Court has Jurisdiction d. (a)Fraud: Ochsenbein v Papelier (1893) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 695; Abo uloff v Oppenheimer (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 310; Syal v Heyward (1948) 2 K. B. 443; Jet Holdings v Patel (1990) Q. B. 335; House of Spring Gardens v Waite (1990) 3 W. L. R. 347; Cap 43 s. 10(1) (h) . (b)Natural Justice Price v Dewhurst (1837) 8 Sim. 279; Scarpetta v Lowenfield (1911) 27 T. L. R. 424; Jacobson v Franchon (1927) 138 L. T. 386; Gray v Formosa (1963) P. 259; Lepre v Lepre (1965) P. 52; Adams v Cape Industries (1990) 2 W. L. R. 657; Cap 43 s. 10 (1) (g) c) Public Policy Re Macartney (1921) 1 Ch. 522; Armitage v Nanchen (1983) 4 F. L. R. 293; Phrantzes v Argenti (1960) 2 Q. B. 19; Mayo-Perrot v M-P (1958) Ir. R 336. Cap 43. 4 (1) (a) (v). Israel Discount Bank of N. Y. v Hadjipateras (1983) 3 All E. R. 129. Vervaeke v Smith (1983) 1 A. C. 145; Cap 43 s. 10 (1) (n) 5. Requirements for and Method of Enforcement a)Must be â€Å"final and conclusive† Nouvion v Freeman (1889) 15 App. Cas 1; Colt Industries v Sarlie (No. 2) (1966) 1 W. L. R. 1287; Berliner Indusrie Bank v Jost (1971) 2 Q. B. 463; Cap 43 s. 3 (2) (b) (b)Must be for debt or fixed sum: Sadler v Robins (1808) 1 Camp. 253. Harrop v H. (1920) 3 K. B. 386; Beatty v B (1924) 1 K. B. 807; Cap 43 s. 3 (2) (a) (c)Must not be for ta xes or a penalty: Huntington v Attril (1893) A. C. 150; Raulin v Fischer (1911) 2 K. B. 93; Schemmer v Property Resources (1975) Ch. 273; SA Consortium v Sun and Sand (1978) Q. B. 279; U. S. A. v Inkley (1989) Q. B. 255; Cap 43 s. 3 (3) (a)

Discuss the value of qualitative research to create new practice Essay

Discuss the value of qualitative research to create new practice knowledge - Essay Example Literature is suggestive that qualitative research’s contribution is growing and advancing knowledge. Knowledge claims emanating from qualitative research, logically, should be open to formal evaluation and critique. This means that it should be open to criticism, audit, and searching, which is the means of assessing the contribution it makes to the advancement of knowledge in terms of challenging, extending, or testing what is believed or known. Qualitative research, in its own right, is a distinct enquiry field with literature indicating that methodology in qualitative research is referent to ideas and principles used by researchers to base strategies and procedures (Denzin & Yvonna, 2011: p15). It acts as a form of social enquiry, focusing on the interpretation of experiences by various individuals. Traditionally, the debate has revolved around the merits of qualitative and quantitative research in knowledge development. Evidence is indicative of qualitative research being more interpretive and better in the study of phenomena and concepts. It aims at understanding the complex relationship between variables rather than cause and effect demonstrations. In addition, the diversity found in its responses has significant value. Qualitative research has been found to be more descriptive and humanistic with many dimensions that require the researcher to use a self-conscious approach (Denzin & Yvonna, 2011: p16). Therefore, on top of reinforcing new practice knowledge, it also helps uncover information that would have been more difficult using other approaches. Qualitative knowledge depends on social context information, especially the comprehension of human experiences. This is of special use when the researcher knows little about the field or topic of research. Contribution of qualitative knowledge in creating new practice knowledge is usually in terms of new theoretical ideas and knowledge (Denzin & Yvonna, 2011: p17). The underlying methods and philosophy , conversely, has left qualitative research open to criticism of being unsystematic, lacking in objectivity, being subjective, and being too general, as well as being a soft approach in comparison to scientific and empirical knowledge. It has even been claimed that evidence is not as powerful as that given by quantitative research. For those who subscribe to other methodologies, qualitative research’s strengths in creating new practice knowledge are viewed as weakness (Denzin & Yvonna, 2011: p17). Qualitative research, however, gives a unique perspective on a topic, as well as providing insight into subjects. The methodology generates knowledge and is subject centered, inductive, interactive, and holistic. It has its basis on people’s meanings, perceptions, and views while also useful in the exploration knowledge questions that are related to meanings, experiences, behavior, and feelings (Gilroy, 2011: p56). Qualitative research has, in a relatively short time, descend ed from many disciplines of diverse backgrounds. Its roots can be found in sociology, philosophy, anthropology, and history. Qualitative research has brought up new methods of acquiring research knowledge such as discourse and conversational analysis with each method coming from different backgrounds. In some fields like nursing, there is also a tendency in qualitative resea

Locke, Berkeley, Plato or desecrates can be the topic of the Research Paper

Locke, Berkeley, Plato or desecrates can be the topic of the .(choose one) - Research Paper Example Appearance may refer to something that simple seems to be and the reality is what the object actually is. These two aspects are normative and positive respectively and a number of philosophers like Locke, Berkeley and Descartes have written about them as their main areas of focus in order to decipher what is appearing to be and what actually is in reality. This paper helps to provide an insight into the realms of appearance and reality with respect to the works of the above mentioned philosophers and how their theories and ideas have actually compelled the world today to think in a certain manner. The main reason behind which one actually began to understand a demarcation between appearance and reality is misleading situations in everyday life. Human beings have a vast imagination which can take them to places; however this same imagination leads them into thinking things that may not actually exist. For example, emotions like fear and terror are created in the minds of people. Fear of the dark or the unknown is something that most people possess as a natural instinct however, the fact of the matter remains that the fear is simply something that appears to be and does not exist in reality because the fear has been planted by someone or something else most of the time rather than arising out of some situation. There are times when people assume things and circumstances and end up realising that whatever happened did not actually take place, but it simply seemed to be a certain way. Reality is that aspect of life that people are actually living in the present. It is not easy for a man to be living in the reality without getting ideas about what to do next. Thus, arises the aspect of ideas and perception of the near future which gives rise to appearances. Appearance is something that seems to be or something that a person might think the actual situation consists of, but it

Quantitative data analysis( By using IBM SPSS ) Essay

Quantitative data analysis( By using IBM SPSS ) - Essay Example It helps to identify the case that has the outlying values. When the initial_output and final_output is taken together for a study, we must examine whether there are outliers in both these variables, unlike there is only one outlier in initial_output so that we can omit both of those extreme cases coming out of initial_output and final_output for any further analysis (like correlations, regression etc..) so that the statistical analyses would be perfect. The following tables and diagrams depict the same. Now by analysing the final_input and final_output variables together, we observe that only case number 58 is the outlier, shown in both the initial_output and final_output box plots. So we can omit that entry for analysis involving the variables initial_output and final_output. Interpretation: From the above t-table, we observe that there is a significant difference between the initial_output and final_output (t value is significant with probability 0.000) which indicates that the training programme is effective. From the above box plot, it is observed that the final output of the case number 58 is outlier, which indicates that in one weeks training programme, the output of case number 58 has tremendously improved in one week training programme compared to the other respondents. Also we notice that case numbers 37 and 55 are extreme low outliers in 1 week training programme. There is no effect of training programme for these outliers. Interpretation: From the above output, we observe that the final output of 1 week training programme is tremendously appreciable when compared to other training conditions ie. 1 day training programme or no training programme. The homogeneous subsets indicate that there is a significant difference between the 1 day and 1 week training programmes but there is no significant difference in the final output between