Categories
Free Essays

Blue Ocean Martix – Genentech

WK3Assgn2ANeddermeyer General Discussion a. Create a “measurement matrix” in Excel that identifies, categorizes, and ranks as many relevant performance measurements as you think are important to your chosen company’s business strategy. b. Write a one- to two-paragraph summary of why you think these are the important measurement criteria and why you’ve ranked them in the order you have. Categries| Rank| Quality| 1 – High Prority| People| 2- Medium Priority| Safety| 3 – Low Priority| Growth|  | Measurement| Category| Rank/Priority| Employee Satisfaction| People| 1| Workplace Safety/Injury incidence| Safety| 1|

Number of current patents| Growth| 2| Medications in the pipeline| Growth| 1| Excess Medications in warehouse| Growth| 1| Employee Attrition rate| People| 1| FDA Approvals for indications| Growth| 1| FDA denials for indications| Growth| 1| Sales| Growth| 1| Customer feedback| Quality| 1| Effectiveness of treatments| Quality| 1| Sustained customer base (%loyal customers)| Quality| 1| Waste of supplies| Quality| 1| Research & Development products| Growth| 1| % of market share| Growth| 1| % of staff Qualitifcations completed| Safety| 1| Successful regulatory surveys| Quality| 1| Net income| Growth| 1| Revenue| Growth| 1|

Ranking in industry| Growth| 1| Litigation volume| Growth| 2| Project timelines for product development| Growth| 1| Timeline for drug manufacturing| Growth| 1| Operating Margin| Growth| 1| Workman Compensation cases opened/closed| Safety| 1| Identification of metrics is a fundamental component of measuring the effectiveness of a business plan or a strategic plan. Metrics help organizations understand the current business climate, the competitive positioning and assists in planning. I did not realize the level of difficulty in the selection of metric until thinking about which metrics would be important to the business I selected.

Genentech Inc is Biotechnology Company comprised of scientific professionals, sale staff, researchers, administrative staff and educators. Patents and exclusivity of the manufacturing of the medications, large volume drug sales, and a robust research/development program drives the company to succeed. In addition to the aforementioned metrics, I also selected workplace safety and injury rates as additional metrics because of the potential lost revenue from having to retain placement staff or costs associated with payments to injured staff.

Much of my selection was based on some of the categories indicated in Hess’ description of worthwhile metrics. I struggled with the prioritization portion of this assignment as I felt most of the metrics needed to be identified as a high priority performance indicator. Reference Attaway, F. (2012). Organic growth interview. Obtained from Walden University Coursework. Schulz, W. C. (2007), Towards a More Precise SWOT Analysis: SCOT Analysis & Competitive Potential, Unpublished Teaching Note. (5p) Hess, E. D. (2007). The road to organic growth: How great companies consistently grow marketshare from within. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Categories
Free Essays

Oceans Carrier Case

Substantive Issue

Ocean Carriers is a shipping company evaluating a proposed lease of a ship for a three-year period to a customer, beginning in 2003. The proposed leasing contract offers very attractive terms, but no ship in Ocean Carrier’s current fleet meets the customer’s requirements. The firm must decide if future expected cash flows warrant the considerable investment in a new ship. Objective of Case Assignment To provide your team an opportunity to make a capital budgeting decision.

That is, to develop an understanding of how discounted cash flow analysis can be used to make investment and corporate policy decisions.

Assignment Questions:

  1. Do you expect daily spot hire rates to increase or decrease next year, and why? (This question should also address what factors appear to drive average daily hire rates. )
  2. What is the cost of the new ship in present value terms? The company’s cost of capital (i. e. , discount rate) is 9%.
  3. What are the expected cash flows for each year? (You are expected to setup an Excel spreadsheet to answer this question.
  4. What is the net present value (i. e. , net cash flow overall) for the investment in the ship?
  5. Should Ms. Linn purchase the $39MM ship?
  6. What do you think of the company’s policy of not operating ships over 15 years old?

Additional Notes to Finance Project

  • A. Event Year 0 (on the Excel template) equals the year 2000. This means 2000 is the current year of the case, also stated as period (n) = 0.
  • B. Based on the above, next year in Question 1 would then be the year 2001.
  • C. When calculating days in the year, use 365 (i. e. , ignore leap years).
  • D. The initial investment in net working capital of $500,000 (p. 5 of case) occurs at the end of 2002—right before the ship is ready for use at the start of 2003. Net working capital defined: current assets minus current liabilities; the net amount of a company’s liquid resources (i. e. , operational buffer). cont’d
  • E. Capital Expenditures (Exhibit I, p. 2 of case) extend the life and/or productivity of an asset–they are not a tax deductible expense in the year they occur. Therefore, they become part of the asset’s cost and must be depreciated over their estimated useful life (5 years). Assume the capital expenditures occur at the end of the years noted in Exhibit I. For example, $300,000 cash outflow in 2007. This means you cannot include the cost of the capital expenditure in your annual depreciation expense calculation until the next year (2008).
  • F. Your annual Depreciation expense calculation should be as follows: Original cost of Ship – Salvage value + Cost of Capital Expenditure__ Estimated useful life of Ship Estimated useful life of Capital Expenditure
  • G. Salvage value of the ship at the end of 15 years is noted in the case. Salvage value is zero at the end of 25 years.
  • H. Tax rate = 35%
  • I. After-tax proceeds from sale of asset = Selling Price – [Tax Rate x (Selling Price – Book Value)]
  • J. Round all calculations to the nearest dollar.
  • K. If you need to make any assumptions, clearly state your assumptions in your paper.
Categories
Free Essays

Ocean Pollution

Sea Pollution The pollution of the ocean is rapidly becoming a crucial problem on Earth. The major causes of sea pollution are oil spills, toxic waste, and dumping of other harmful materials into the ocean. This pollution will directly affect the living organisms in the ocean and indirectly affect human’s health and resources. We, as humans, should learn more about these in order to have the knowledge on how to solve this problem effectively. Oil spill is perhaps the most publicly acknowledged cause of sea pollution.

Large tanker accident like the Exxon Valdez had been rapidly known worldwide. This incident happened in Prince William Sound, Alaska in March 1989, where the Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker, grounded on Bligh Reef, spilling almost 11 million gallons of crude oil. It is considered as one of the most devastating human-caused environmental tragedy. Plenty of people didn’t realize that hundreds of millions of gallons of oil are quietly end up in our oceans by other sources such as routine shipping, run-offs, and dumping every year.

Toxic wastes are poisonous chemical and biological materials that are produced from industrial plants or facilities and agricultural work that are carried away through freshwater and into the rivers, lakes, and ocean. These dangerous pollutants include chemical contaminants such as Lead, Mercury, Asbestos, Sulphur, Nitrates, etc. , and biological contaminants such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, etc. Dumping of litter into the ocean can cause huge problems to the marine life. The ocean is a virtual dumping ground for rubbish.

That garbage includes scrap fish nets, plastic bags, tin cans, glass or plastic bottles etc. Sea pollution will cause different harmful effects on the wildlife. For example, oil spills frequently the kill marine lives and further cause extinctions. Blow holes of the whales and dolphins will be clogged by the oil, making them very difficult to breathe and communicate regularly. And the fur of the otters, seals and penguin will be coasted by a thick layer of oil, leaving them exposed to hypothermia.

When oil floats on the water, this will block the sunlight from the photosynthetic aquatic plants. Sea pollution is also harmful to human’s health. Although it may not directly and immediately affect human’s health, it can damage our health after a long term of exposure. For instance, industrial waste is one of the dangerous pollutants which are extremely harmful to human’s health. Chemical properties such as Mercury and Lead are consumed by human indirectly from consuming fishes that have been caught from the polluted ocean.

And Lead is dangerous to our health, especially children’s and pregnant women’s as it accumulates in the body and will affect the central nervous system. There are many ways that ocean pollution can be prevented or controlled. A lot of people are unaware that huge portion of the pollution problem can be tracked right back to their own backyards and homes. Therefore, sea pollution can be prevented by keeping to some simple guidelines in our daily life. For example, be aware of what we throw down the sink or toilet.

Solvent litter like paints or oil should not be thrown down the drain as it will slowly flow to the ocean through the streams and rivers. And of course the most basic way to prevent sea pollution is to avoid throwing rubbish into the rivers, lakes and oceans. One of the other ways to control sea pollution is through industrial water treatment. In order to release sewage back into the environment safely, the raw sewage must first be treated correctly in a water treatment plant.

In the water treatment plant, the sewage will go through a few phases, which includes a numbers of chambers and chemical processes, to filter, degrade and get rid of any left-over impurities in order to minimize the toxicity level and amount of the waste. “Prevention is better than cure. ” It is not just the government’s responsibility, but is every individual’s responsibility to put in effort to help control and prevent the pollution of the ocean. This is a very important task to protect and improve the quality of the environment for our future generations.

Categories
Free Essays

The Oregon Coast

The sunset glistens against the raging ocean water. I could walk for miles on the sand as it is ongoing never ending. While your feet sink in the sand I can ponder the peacefulness around me. The way the two rocks were hit by the glowing sunrise set a reflection of crystals in the clear water. There was a slight misty breeze, as I walked along the water. The Oregon coast is my sanctuary with the two most beautiful rocks that stood on the edge of the unknown below them.

Waves would rush up to my feet carrying the sand in between my toes. As I lifted my feet while walking I could hear a grinding sound like paper rubbing on the bottom of my feet. The sand started feeling softer and smoother against my feet. With every step, I watched how my footprints became embedded into the sand. Suddenly, seeing how slowly they would disappear with every inch the water covered. The water sent a chill throughout my body. It shocked me every time the bitter cold would crash into my feet.

To see the sunset as the blue cloudless sky turns shades of black around me. It would take my breath away at every glance I would take. I backed away from the water for a moment, as my eyes marveled at the bright colors from above. It lit the water up reds, blues, yellows and orange reflections sparkled off the translucent water. Little speckles came out in the skies around you feeling like glitter dropping on your face. When looking down you could see black shaped and jagged edges on the sea floor.

Specks of white shells had little shine to them, but would show a slight sparkle from above. The waves were slowly crashing against my feet. I glanced back at the two rocks they stood side by side. The rocks have a reflection of crystal rays surrounding them. Looking from a distance, they looked smaller than they really are. They have a sense of wonder, mystery to them. I could sit for hours and ponder them. How big are they? How long have they stood in the ocean with the crashing of the waves all around them?

They reflected every color off of the sun and the moon. It would shoot rays of colors all through the frozen clear water around them and light up the crashing waves. Some are white and rolling, others loud and angry as the press against the rocks over and over. The simplicity of the Oregon Coast it can take my breath away. It is truly one of the world’s modern marvels with its natural beauty, glistening sunsets, and the sand between your toes. It is my sanctuary.

Categories
Free Essays

Life in the Ocean

Question 1: Parts of Chesapeake Bay were affected by unexpected blooms of a toxic dinoflagellate, Pfisteria piscicida, in 1997. Research those occurrences in the internet, and discuss the blooms and their effects on the local economy. Was it sensationalist press coverage, or a real danger to humans?

Ans.: During the summer of 1997, the Chesapeake Bay was reported to have an unexpected bloom of the plankton, Pfisteria piscicida. Experts believed that it was caused by too much pollution from the surrounding districts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. Farms, factories, and towns contribute to the pollution. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 318 million pounds of nitrogen and 19 million pounds of phosphorus are deposited into the Bay as the result of development, run-off, and air pollutants. Agriculture and poultry operations constitute a large part of the causes of pollution of the Bay. The presence of these pollutants at high concentrations triggered the pfisteria bloom, the result of which was devastating. Thousands of fishes were killed rendering massive losses in the local economy, i.e. seafood sales drop. Maryland alone had lost $43 million in sales. Many people were sick due to the toxins taken from the Bay products which increased expenditure in healthcare and medicine.

Pfisteria bloom in the Chesapeake Bay posed a threat to humans as well as other organisms. In Maryland, environmentalists are making some steps to minimize pollution of the Bay. The US government had spent millions of dollars in trying to eradicate the cause of such phenomena.

Question 2: Whale watching is considered as a worthwhile environmental activity. Some tour guide operations even allow `whale petting`, as in the Pacific Gray whale nursing grounds in Baja California. `Swim with the Dolphins` operators are popular in Florida, Hawaii, and the Caribbean. Discuss the potential deleterious effects that these interactions with humans may have on these marine mammals.

Ans.: Human activities have substantial effects to the marine environment, especially the marine mammals. Activities like that cause loud underwater noise, deep-water gillnetting and driftnet fishing, pollution, whaling, large-scale industrial fishing, vessel traffic as well as activities like whale-watching, whale-petting, or simply interacting with the marine mammals have deleterious effects to them. The immediate effect of these interactions to the marine mammals is disturbance.

Whale-watchers observed that whales are becoming more difficult to search in the open seas because of changes of areas and modes of operation as the result of these disturbances. Visual and acoustic surveys proved that whales are susceptible to acoustic changes, i.e. sound of the vessel engine, as it is there primary mode of communication. Whales and other marine mammals use echolocation in searching for food and other activities (i.e. mating, social contact). Noise from tour boats disrupts the sound signals transmitted and received thereby affecting their senses. This resulted to decline in whale population and other marine mammals. Research also showed that the presence of tour boats in their surroundings causes stress which affects their behavior.

Question 3. What fish and shellfish populations are at or below historic levels? What restoration efforts are being revised to manage the most important fisheries more effectively? Discuss these and other issues affecting marine resources RIGHT HERE in Maryland.

Ans.: Chesapeake Bay fish and shellfish populations are largely affected by pollution from the surrounding states. Blue crab, oyster, striped bass, Susquehanna shad, and menhaden are some of the species studied. Different strategies used to increase harvest were examined by scientists and natural resource managers. The American shad and the blue crab were found to have increased over the past decade and are no longer below historic levels.

This increase was attributed to the responsible fisheries management. Current reports have shown that the Bay’s fish and shellfish are three-fifths away from the desired levels. In this regard, scientists and managers are trying their best to restore the Bay’s abundant estuarine ecosystem. The restoration efforts include the following activities and plans: reducing pollution, maintain restoring habits, responsible fisheries management, watershed protection, and fostering stewardship. Pollution, as the primary cause of death of estuarine species was tackled by different states by enforcing laws that protects the Bay area from ruthless throwing of waste matter, i.e. increasing taxation of industry-scale poultry operations in Maryland.
References

Spotts, P.N. (1997). US Pours Money, Expertise into Halting Legal ‘Blooms’ [Electronic Version]. Christian Science Monitor, 10/08/97(United States), 3. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/notedevents/gennews/generalHABnews.html

Goodman, P.S. (1998). Ma., Va. Brace for Pfiesteria Outbreaks. The Washington Post, April 5, 1998.

Lauhakangas, R. (n.d.). Special Aspects of Sperm Whales and Their Relevance to Whale Watching. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://www.helsinki.fi/~lauhakan/whale/education/sc4876.html

Stiffler, L. (2002). Whale-watchers Might be Harmful to Orcas, Study Shows. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/72927_orca01.shtml

Categories
Free Essays

Tsunamis: Ocean and Wave Shape Changes

6 05 Tsunami Nicolai Kortendick 1. The web site presents extensive information regarding tsunamis. Survey the site. A. Select the five facts about tsunamis that were the most interesting or surprising to you. Make a list of your facts. 1. A tsunami is made up of a series of traveling ocean waves of extremely long wavelength. 2. They are triggered by earthquakes and undersea volcanic eruptions and deep sea landslides. 3. The wave shape changes and the height increases as it approaches the coastline. . Far field tsunamis have a long travel time so it is easier to predict their effects. 5. Near field tsunami have a travel time of one or two hours, making it harder to evacuate people to safe, high areas before the tsunami reaches the coast. B. Now look over your list. In your opinion, what is the most intriguing item on your list? Explain. The most intriguing item on the list to me is that tsunamis resemble waves that I see a lot every day and they have extremely long wavelengths. 2.

If you were on a ship at sea, and a tsunami passed under your ship, what would probably be your reaction? Explain. I would be pretty scared if I knew it was a tsunami, and I would be worried for the people on the coast it was heading for. It probably wouldn’t be a very big wave if I was far out in the ocean so it wouldn’t scare me as much. 3. The site offers a tsunami quiz. Take the quiz. What was your score? I got 7 out of the 10 questions correct. 4. When you viewed the “Introduction to Waves” video, you learned several terms that apply to all waves.

How do the following terms apply to tsunamis and what are typical values for a tsunami’s wavelength and amplitude? Use the following sites to look for answers: http://www. enchantedlearning. com/subjects/tsunami http://hyperphysics. phy-astr. gsu. edu/HBASE/Waves/tsunami. html C. Wavelength Tsunamis have an extremely long wavelength (which is the distance between the crest of one wave and the crest of the next wave) – up to several hundred miles long. D. amplitude

The amplitude of a wave is the height of a wave from the still water level to the top of the wave crest. As a tsunami reaches a coastline its amplitude increase greatly. E. crest The crest is the top of a wave. The wavelength of a wave is measured from the crest of one wave to the crest of another. F. trough The trough is the bottom of a wave. As a tsunami approaches the coast (where the sea becomes shallow), the trough of a wave hits the beach floor, causing the wave to slow down, to increase in height and to decrease in wavelength.

Categories
Free Essays

Southern Ocean Shipbuilding v Deutsche Bank

Contracts (C3, pg 58) |Nature of contract |- Legal relationship consisting of the right and promises constituting an agreement between the parties that give each party a legal | | |duty to the other and also the right to seek for breach of those duties | | |- Consensus ad idem (meeting of minds); what the parties agree on must be clear and unambiguous and parties must be ad idem. | |Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man (2006) , | | |T2 Networks Pte Ltd v Nasioncom Sdn Bhd (2008) | |Types of Contracts | Oral contracts | | |Written contract provides evidence of the parties’ contractual obligations. | |Forefront Medical Technology (Pte) Ltd v Modern-Pak Pte Ltd (2006) | | |Parol evidence rule = oral evidence not admissible to add to, vary, amend or contradict written contract s 93-94 Evidence Act (refer | | |to Terms) | | |Engelin Teh Practice LLC v Wee Soon Kim Anthony (2004) | . Offer (C3, pg 63) |As the expression to another of a willingness to be bound by stated terms. | |Invitation to treat (pg 64) | |An invitation to others to enter into a negotiation which may eventually lead to the making of an offer. | |An ad is view as invitations to treat. | |Auction without reservations (refer to Barry v Davis (2000) pg 5) |(Offer = Bids made by audience, Acceptance = Auctioneer indicates bids accepted) | |Display of Goods | |Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd (1952) the court held that the display of goods with prices constitutes an | |invitation to treat. The offer is only made when a customer selects the item he wants and brings it to the cashier to pay for it. |Reaffirmed by Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong & Others v Digilandmall com Pte Ltd (2004) | |Advertisements An ad is view as invitations to treat. | |Partridge v Crittenden (1968) | |Provision of Information | |Harvey v Facey (1893) – The court held that there was no contract because provision of information was not an offer.

Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean | |(1880) – Seeking for more information is neither a rejection nor acceptance, it was merely an enquiry. | |*compare between offer and invitation to treat, must prove why choose one over the other | |Specific Offeree |An offer is an expression made by one party to another party. For an offer to be effective, the offer must be communicated to the | | |offeree. | Unilateral Contracts |A contract brought into existence by the act of one party in response to a conditional promise by another. Harvela Investments Ltd v | |(involving only one |Royal Trust Co of Canada (Cl) Ltd & Ors (1984)No exchange of promise, only 1 promise (made by offeror). | |side) |Offeree makes no promise, only performs conditions attached to offeror’s promise. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) – Where | |(pg 63) |advertisement contains a promise in return for an act, an offer is intended. (No general rule that an ad cannot be an offer. | |Bi-lateral Contracts |An agreement where one party makes a promise to the other party. | |(involving on 2 side |There are duties, rights and considerations on both parties. In other words, performance of the conditions is an acceptance of the | |or both) |offer and this acceptance should be notified. | Termination of Offer (Pg 75) (5 ways) |Withdrawal |Law: Offer can be withdrawn or revoked by the offeror at any time before it is accepted. (When an offer is withdrawn, the offer is said | | |to be revoked). Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v Turegum Insurance Co (2001) | | |Law: Withdrawal must be communicated to offeree (Revocation is only effective when the offeree receives notice of the revocation) Byrne | | |v Van Tienhoven (1880) – It was held that the revocation was not effective until it was received by the plaintiff. Since the offer was | | |accepted prior to the revocation, there was a valid contract. | |Law: Revocation of offer can be communicated by a third party (as long as offeree obtains knowledge of the revocation) (must be a | | |reliable and trustworthy source) Dickinson v Dodds (1876) Law: Fresh Offer (Revocation can also occer if the offer is replaced by a | | |fresh offer) Ban Paribas v Citibank NA (1989) | | |Law: Offer is opened for a fixed period Routledge v Grant (1828) –Rationale is that an offeree cannot enforce an offeror’s promise to | | |keep his offer open unless there is separate contract supported by consideration to do so, such contracts are called options – Tay Joo | | |Sing v Ku Yu Sang – essentially a promise, supported by consideration, to keep an offer open for a specific period of time within which | | |to decide whether or not to enter into the purchase of agreement. | | |Law: Unilateral Contracts Abbot v Lance (1860), it was held that the offeror cannot withdraw his offer once the offeree has started to | | |act. – Dickson Trading(s) Pte Ltd v Transmarco Ltd (1989), obiter dictum, the offeror in a unilateral contract has an obligation not to | | |revoke the offer after the offeree has involved in the performance of the conditions. |Lapse of time |Acceptance after specific period which offeror states that his offer is open = Ineffective | | |If the offer is opened for a specified period, a purported acceptance after that period would not be effective since the offer had | | |lapsed. the court may imply that the offeror has specified the period of offer even if he has not done so expressly. Wee Ah Lian v Teo | | |Siak Weng (1992) | | |- however, if it is clear from the offeror’s conduct and other evidence that the terms of the supposedly lapsed offer continue to govern| | |their relationship after the specified period, then it is still valid and acceptable after the deadline. Panwell Pte Ltd & Anor v | | |Indian Bank (No2) (2002) | | |When no specified period of time is expressed, an offer would lapse after a reasonable amount of time, (depending on the facts of the | | |case). Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co v Montefiore (1866) – the court held that Montefiore could refuse to take up the shares because his | | |offer had lapsed after a reasonable time. | |Failure of |Offer automatically terminated if condition not met | |Condition |An offer may terminate on the occurrence of a specified event if the offer is subjected to the condition that it will do. e. g. erminate| | |if goods are damaged before acceptance, subject to the approval of my lawyer Financings Ltd v Stimson (1962) | |Death |Dickinson v Dodds( if the man who makes an offer dies, the offer cannot be accepted after he is dead. Reynolds v Atherton (1921)( | | |Offeree dies before acceptance, this offer cease to be capable of acceptance. Bradbury v Morgan (1862)( the court held that the death of| | |an offeror did not terminate the offer unless the offeree had notice of the offeror’s death. | 2. Acceptance (C3, pg 67) |Indication by the offeree of his consent to the offer and his intention to form a contract based on the exact terms of the offer | |- Whatever its form, a communication constitutes acceptance only if it is an unconditional expression of assent to the terms of offer.

Compaq Computer Asia| |Pte Ltd v Computer Interface(s) Pte Ltd (2004) | |- Conditional Acceptance is treated as no acceptance. Struttgart Auto Pte Ltd v Ng Shwu Yong (2005); | |- Accepts seller’s offer subject to a written contract drafted – Thmoas Plaza (Pte) Ltd v Liquidators of Yaohan Departmental Store Singapore Pte Ltd (in | |liquidation) (2001); | |- Agreenment shall not be final and binding agreement – Cendekia Candranegara Tjiang v Yin Kum Choy & Others (2002) | |Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. 1877) The Court held that the facts and actual conduct of the parties, established the existence of a contract, and | |there having a clear breach of it, Brogden must be held liable upon it. | |Law: Acceptance of unilateral contract is when all the terms of the contract are fully performed Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) | |Counter |Offeree introduces a new term or varies the terms of an offer (original offeror is free to accept or reject the “counter offer”) Hyde v Wrench | |Offer |(1840) – The court held that there was no contract because Hyde’s reply was a counter offer which extinguished the earlier offer.

When the | | |response is an inquiry or a request of information, it should not be construed as an offer | |Knowledge|Law: Offeree cannot accept in ignorance of the law | |of Offer |offeree must be aware of the offer – Fitch v Snedaker (1868) and R v Clarke (1927) – As long as offeree has knowledge of offer, motive is | | |irrelevant. Once the offeree is aware of the offer, it does not matter that he was prompted to act for reasons other than the desire to accept | | |the offer.

William v Carwardine (1833) – the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a reward, she had done so with knowledge of the reward| | |even though her motive for giving the information was her own remorse. | | |Cross-offer: Do not constitute to agreement/contract; lack of consensus / meeting of minds between parties at the time of making offer. – Tinn v | | |Hoffman & Co (1873) | |Communica|General Rule: Acceptance must be communicated (Acceptance must actually be received by the offeror) | |tion of |Acceptance effective when communicated/received by offeror. | |Acceptanc|If in writing, it must be physically received by the offeror, and if orally, heard by the offeror. Acceptance must be unconditional and absolute. |e |obiter dictum in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation (1955) and CS Bored Pile System Pte Ltd v Evan Lam &Co Pte Ltd (2006) | | |Powell v Lee (1908) Held that there was no authorized communication of intention to contract on part of the body hence no contract. | |Silence |Silence is only a form of acceptance if both parties agree to it. Silence of the offeree would not constitute a valid acceptance | | |Felthouse v Bindley (1862)–held that there was no contract between the two parties. The plaintiff had no right to impose a condition that a sale | | |contract would come into existence if the defendant remained silent. | |Exemption case: Both parties agree that the offeree would have a positive obligation to communication only if he wished to reject the offer. | | |Albeit rare in practice, silence is properly be construed as acceptance – Southern Ocean Shipbuilding Co Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG (1993) and | | |Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte Ltd (2004) – defendant’s conduct of paying the reduced rent showed that a contact exists. | |Instantan|Time of acceptance is the time at which the acceptance is communicated to the offeror | |eous |Ithe acceptance will take effect when and where it is received, acceptance must be absolute and unconditional Entores v Miles Far East Corp | Communica|(1955) | |tions |- if got designated info system; receipt when e-record entered the designated info system. Emails, Fax, Telex | | |- if got designated info system but sent elsewhere then is receipt upon retrieval. | | |- if no designated info system; receipt upon entering any info system of addressee. | |Exception|The Postal Rule (ONLY FOR LETTERS OF ACCEPTANCE! ) | |s |- Quenerduaine v Cole (1883) – telegram means speedy reply; not attracted by postal rule.

Offeror will claim that it is only valid acceptance | | |when physically received. | | |- Agreement cannot be withdrawn once the post is sent out. Henthorn v Fraser (1892) | | |- Acceptance deemed effective as soon as the letter is posted regardless as to when it reaches the offeror or whether it reaches him at all. | | |Adams v Lindsell (1818) | | |- the court held that the acceptance was communicated and the contract was formed as soon as the plaintiff posted the acceptance letter. Lee | | |Seng Heng v Guardian Assurance CO Ltd (1932) | | |Waiver of Communication: facts show that the offeror has waived the need for communiation of acceptance; when offer made to whole world | | |(unilateral contract; anyone can accept) – Calill v Carbolic Smoke Ball. | | |( the doing of the act by the offeree may itself be constructed as acceptance, without requiring formal communication to the offeror. | | |Termination of acceptance: Once posted, an acceptance cannot be revoked. – Wenkheim v Arndt (1873) | 3. Consideration (C4, Pg 85) Two Main Rules on Consideration Must move from promisee but need not move to promisor.

Tweedle v Atkinson (1861) Need not be adequate but must be sufficient. Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) |Is what each party gives to the other as the agreed price for the other’s promise | |Detriment to one OR Benefit to another | |But it need not move to the promisor Malayan Banking Bhd v Lauw Wisanggeni – A third party who is a stranger to the contract may benefit from the contract | |although he may not enforce it. | |Need not be adequate but must be sufficient – Law will not interfere with parties contract so long as consideration is of “some value” in the eyes of the | |law. |In order for a promise to be enforceable in court, consideration must first be given (exchange of promises would be sufficient consideration)– Dunlop v | |Selfridge (1915) | |Past Consideration is |Refers to an act performed prior to and to that extent independent of, the promises being exchanged (act performed without the | |not valid |reciprocal promise in mind). | | |Past consideration is no consideration The court held that the promise was made after the transaction had already been concluded | | |and therefore past consideration.

Roscorla v Thomas (1842) and Teo Song Kwang (alias Richard) v Gnau Lye Chan and Another (2006) | | |To become executed consideration: – Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) and Sim Tony v Ah Ghee (t/a Phil Real Estate &Building Services) | | |(1995) | | |Act done at promisor’s request If the promisor has previously asked the other party to provide goods or services, then a promise | | |made after they are provided will be treated as binding. | | |Contract must otherwise be enforceable Done in biz context and it is clearly understood by both sides that it will be paid for then| | |valid.

Re Caseys’s Patent v Casey (1892) held the request to Casey to manage the patent carried an implied promise to pay for that | | |service, hence it was enforceable. | |Consideration must move|The only person who can sue for breach of contract must be the party who has given consideration (promise) – Tweedle v Atkinson | |from the promisee |(1861) – the court held that Tweedle could not enforce the contract between the two fathers because firstly he is not a party of | | |the contract, and secondly, no consideration flowed from him. | | |Consideration need not move to the promisor; 3rd party can may benefit although may not enforce it. Malayan Banking Bhd v Lauw | | |Wisanggeni | |Sufficient, |- Law will not inquire to the fairness of consideration, as long as the parties agree to it willingly – Lam Hong Leong Aluminium | |Need not be Adequate; |Pte Ltd v Lian Teck Huat Consruction Pte Ltd and Another (2003) | |Adequacy of |- Law does not measure value (once the subject of exchange is recognized in law as suitable consideration, quantity is irrelevant) | |Consideration |- Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprise Pte Ltd v Navalmar UK Ltd (No2) (2003) and Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) –the | | |consideration included the wrappers even though they were of no value to Nestle. | | |Thomas v Thomas (1842) – The court held that the nominal rent was sufficient consideration but the husband’s wishes were | | |irrelevant; motive is not the same thing as consideration. |Sufficiency of |A promise not to enforce a Claim is Good Consideration Promise not to sue or enforce a valid claim or settlement of legal action = | |Consideration |sufficient consideration Lam Hong Leong Aluminium Pte Ltd v Lian Teck Huat Consruction Pte Ltd and Another (2003) and Alliance Bank| | |Ltd v Broom (1864) Normally, banks would not promise to enforce debt but is not done here. For not suing, considerations shown ( | | |binding agreement to provide security. | |Sufficient |Forbearance to sue |A promise to forbear from suing or enforcing a valid claim can constitute sufficient or valuable | | | |consideration. Alliance Bank Ltd v Broom (1864).

K-Rex Finance Ltd v Cheng Chih Cheng (1993) – The court | | | |spoke the words of Cockburn CJ in Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1870). | | | |The same applies to a compromise of a legal action. The req. is that the legal action must be reasonable and| | | |not frivolous, that the claimant has an honest belief that in the chance of success of the claim and that | | | |the claimant has not concealed from the other party any fact which, to the claimant’s knowledge, might | | | |affect its validity.

Miles v New Zealand Alford Estate Co (1886) | | |Performance of |The Eurymedon (1975) – The Privy Council held that even though the defendant was already contractually bound| | |existing contractual |to a third party to do so, the defendant’s act of unloading the ship formed good consideration for the | | |duty to third party |contract with the plaintiff. This was also clarified in Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) by the HOL. This was | | | |also accepted in the Singapore High Court in SSAB Oxelosund AB v Xendral Trading Pte Ltd (1992). | |Moral obligation & |Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) – The court rejected the plaintiff’s view and held that moral obligation is | | |motives |insufficient consideration for a fresh promise. | |Insufficient |Vague or insubstantial|White v Bluett (1853) – The court held that Bluett’s promise was nothing more than a promise “not to bore | | |consideration |his father”. As such it was too vague(fake) and was insufficient consideration for the alleged discharge by | | | |his father. | | |Performance of |Collins v Godefroy (1831) –Performance of an existing public duty is not valid consideration. | |existing public duty |Glassbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan City Council (1925)- If the court finds the promisee did something more that| | | |required by an existing public duty, then it may be sufficient. | | |Performance of |Stilk v Myrick (1809) – It was held that there was no consideration for the captain’s promise because the | | |existing contractual |remaining crew did what they were contractually required. Two sailors deserting were within the usual | | |duty |emergencies found in such a voyage. | | |However, if it is more than what is contractually required, that may constitute good consideration – Hartley| | | |v Ponsonby (1857) and Williams v Roffey Bros (1991) – The English Court of Appeal held that as long as the | | | |extra payment was not given under duress or fraud, the oral promise was enforceable because the defendant | | | |obtained “practical benefits” from the plaintiff’s work. The benefit was that they would not be liable under| | | |the main contract for late completion. | | |Rule in Pinnel’s Case |Pinnel’s case is authority for the proposition that payment of a lesser sum without anything extra is not a | | | |good consideration. | | |- It would be good consideration provided with a gift (can be anything, even time) is given as the gift | | | |might be more beneficial than the money. -But if the person asks me pay lesser, then cannot sue. – If I | | | |accepted a smaller amount, after that I decided to sue again, CAN! Provided no gift! | | | |Pinnel’s Case (1602) – The part payment of a debt does not discharge the entire debt unless the part payment| | | |was made at the request of the creditor and the payment was made earlier, at a different place, or in | | | |conjunction with some other valuable consideration.

Foakes v Beer (1884) affirmed Pinnel’s Case – the HOL | | | |held that Beer’s promise not to take further action was not supported by consideration. She could claim the | | | |money. ( in Euro-Asia Realty Pte Ltd v Mayfair Investment Pte Ltd (2001), District Court in Singapore | | | |endorsed the rule in Foakes v Beer and held favor in creditor. | | |Promissory Estoppel is an equitable doctrine whose origin may be traced to Lord Cairns in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877). | | |When p. e. is established, the court may enforce a promise despite the fact that there was no consideration. Central London | | |Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd (1947) | | |Elements (Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd (1947) and D&C Builders v Rees (1966)) | | |1)Parties must have existing legal relationship 2)Clear and unequivocal promise which affects the legal relationship 3)Promisee | | |relied upon promise and altered his position 4)Inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise. | |Promissory Estoppel |Cause of action | |(For no consideration) |When the promisor gives reasonable notice of his intention to revert to the original legal relationship, the original relationship | | |is restored. The effect of p. e. is to suspend promisor’s rights temporarily.

Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co| | |Ltd (1995) However, the promise could become ‘final and irrevocable if the promisee cannot resume his position. ” Ajayi v R T | | |Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd (1964) | | |A defensive tool | | |This means that it can only be raised as a shield and not a sword, i. e. a defense against a claim and not to commence a suit.

Combe| | |v Combe (1951) (people sue you then can use ) Assoland Construction Pte Ltd v Malayan Credit Properties Pte Ltd (1993) and Lai Yew | | |Tay Pte Ltd v Pilecon Engineering BHd (2002) | | | | 4. Intention to Create Legal Relations (Pg 17) |The test is whether a reasonable person viewing all the circumstances of the case would consider that the promisor intended his promise to have legal | |consequences. objective test” (objectively ascertained) | |Social and |General presumption = no legal intention | |Domestic |Balfour v Balfour (1919) and Jones v Padavatton (1969) – An agreement is not legally binding unless the parties intend that each will | |Agreements |accept the lefal consequences for its breach. Choo Tiong Hin v Choo Hock Swee (1959) – the plaintiff’s promises were not enforceable | | |because the lack of intention to create legal relations. De Cruz Andrea Heidi v Guangzhou Yuzhitang Health Products Co Ltd and Others | | |(2003) -Friend doing a favor even though secret profit or commission is earned. | |However in Merritt v Merritt (1970) and Wakeling v Ripley– The English Court of Appeal found the necessary intention and held that the | | |wife succeeded in her claim for breach of contract. | |Commercial |General presumption = Legal intention | |Agreements |- There is necessary intention to create legal relations. Edwards v Skyway Ltd (1964) – The court held that Skyways was legally bound. | | |Binding but unenforceable | | |Honour Clauses – When parties have expressly stated that their agreement is not to be legally binding. Rose &Frank Co v J R Crompton | | |&Bros Ltd (1925) | | |Exceptions (not legally binding): | | |Letter of Comfort (pg 17) ( may be binding depending on its terms | | |usually a document supplied by a 3rd party to a creditor indicating a concern to ensure that a debtor meets his obligations to the | | |creditor. | | |Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysian Mining Corporation Berhad (1989) Court only found a moral not legal obligation. refer to pg 17) | | |Letter of Intent (LOI) (pg 17) | | |A device by which one indicates to another of his intention to enter into a contract with him | | |E. g. a main contractor is prearing a tender and he plans to subcontract some of the work. | Privity of Contract (Pg 105) |The general rule is that no one, other than a person who is a party to the contract may be entitled to enforce or be bound by the terms of the contract. – | |Price v Easton (1833) – court held that Price could not succeed, as he was not a party to the contract between the debtor and the Easton.

Management | |Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2297 v Seasons Park Ltd (2005) | |Exceptions (Thai Kenaf Co Ltd v Keck Seng (S) Pte Ltd (1993) | |Agency relationship | |Assignment of choses in action – consent of 3 parties | |Letter of Credit | |Agreement |Intention to create legal relations |Consideration | |Is it an offer? Define offer |Is there any intention? |Is it revocation? Via broadcast? | |Was the offer effectively revoked? |Is the agreement legally bind (To place under legal|Is Consideration need to be sufficient but not | |Is it valid acceptance?

Communicated |obligation by contract)? |adequate? | |Third party’s conversation? |Is the agreement reached in a business context? |Promissory Estoppel? Talk about the elements, sword| |Postal rude? |(eg. Family, friends) |or shield? | |Is there any provision of information? |Is it (social and domestic) or commercial |Is the consideration moved from promisee? | |Any counter offer? |agreement? | | |Is the offeree aware of offer with motive? | | | |Is the offer lapse? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Categories
Free Essays

Campaign to Make Awareness About Ocean Pollution

Campaign to make awareness about ocean pollution Background The current environmental issue of ocean pollution in Dubai which is spreading rapidly due to lack of awareness. Gulf countries depend heavily on seawater desalination for drinking water. But experts warns that pollution of gulf water could soon make it impossible to treat seawater for human consumption. According to ram Prasad a oil and gas expert in Dubai claims that increasing urbanisation led to dumping of sewage, hazardous waste and toxic chemicals in to the sea (Janardhan, 2004) Target Public

Ocean pollution is a sector which is not taken seriously. There is awareness’ in the government but the regulations and rules must change to reduce the impact and make the public more aware about the situation. The primary target of the campaign is to make the main governmental authorities involved in water resource management to take an action about the current ocean pollution. Getting attention of main governmental authorities such as : * The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries The Ministry of Electricity and Water * The General Water Resources Authority * The Federal Environmental Agency Objective The primary objective is to get the attention on governmental authorities to take the matter in to their hands by cooperating . for example oil spill is a serious issue how can they help to prevent it? What new laws could be built? Secondary objective is to make the general public aware of ocean pollution so that they won’t contribute to it. Message

The message of the campaign would be “SAVE THE WATERS” which would influence the authorities and public to act upon it. Strategy/ channel and tactics Our stragedy of awareness is mainly based on media. Trough social networking sites to spread the message. Organising events to grab the public attention. News letters on leading newspapers such as gulf news sponsored by authorities. Timetable The time table would contain the days where campaigns will be held. Time and locations. Timetable

Categories
Free Essays

Case Study of Indian Ocean Tsunami

Case Study of the Indian Ocean Tsunami On December 26, 2004, the Indian Ocean earthquake, or the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, caused a tsunami that killed 230,000 people and was recorded as the deadliest tsunami in known history. The earthquake was recorded as between 9. 1 and 9. 3 on the Richter scale, the second largest earthquake ever recorded. It was also recorded as the longest one, triggering earthquakes as far away as Alaska. Following the disaster, a worldwide effort raised billions of dollars in tsunami relief. Consequences

The initial toll by the U. S. Geological Survey was 283,100 dead. However, actual figures counted 229,886. About one-third of the dead are children because they were least able to fight the waters. Additionally, nearly 9,000 foreign tourists were dead or missing. The disaster affected Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, the Maldives, Somalia, Myanmar, Malaysia, Seychelles and others in South East Asian. In some areas, drinking water supplies and farm fields are contaminated for the long term by the ocean’s salt waters.

The United Nations stated that the relief effort will be the costliest in history and reconstruction may take up to ten years. One of the biggest fears was the spread of diseases, which prompted non-governmental organizations and relief agencies to increase humanitarian aid. Furthermore, the economic impact is devastating on both the national and local levels. Costal fishing communities are some of the poorest in the region, and fishing exports account for substantial earnings of the countries. Nearly two-thirds of the fishing fleet and infrastructure were destroyed.

The earthquake and ensuing tsunami changed the seabed in the Malacca Straits, and new navigational charts would have to be created. Additionally, tourism is greatly impacted as foreigners canceled their trips to South East Asian. The disaster also has a great environmental impact as it inflicted severe damage on ecosystems such as mangroves, coral reefs, forests, coastal wetlands, vegetation, sand dunes and rock formations, animal and plant biodiversity and groundwater. The spread of wastes and industrial chemicals further polluted waters and threaten ecosystems.

The invading seawater also contaminated freshwater, destroying the critical environment habitable for coral reefs. Citizen Response The public was generous in donating to tsunami aid. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the public donated nearly US$600,000,000. Compared to the government, the donation was quite substantial, averaging around $10 per person, including the homeless and children. Government Response Governments and humanitarian organizations responded by providing sanitation facilities and fresh drinking water to prevent a wave of diseases from increasing the death toll.

The quick response mitigated and contained diseases such as cholera, diphtheria, dysentery, and typhoid that could have inflicted even more damage. Also, there was a substantial movement to bury bodies to prevent the spread of disease. Globally, countries provided over US$3 billion in aid. The government of Australia pledged nearly US$820 million and the United States pledged $950 million. In the US, a joint effort by former Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton led the effort to provide private aid to tsunami victims.

The Boxing Day Tsunami of 2004 must go down in human history as one of our greatest ever disasters. A magnitude 9. 0 earthquake, the most powerful to hit anywhere in the last 40 years, created tidal waves in the Indian Ocean that killed at least 225,000 people in 11 countries. Sri Lanka was hit quite hard, with over 32,000 dead and approx. 5 percent of the population there left homeless. In Indonesia more than 150,000 were killed and over 12,000 lost their lives in India, most in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. In Thailand there were more than 5,000 deaths many of whom were foreign tourists.

The devastation to services, property and buildings from the effects of the Tsunami was so immense that international appeals were launched for aid to the victims, of unprecedented proportions. The disaster spawned immediate and renewed scientific interest in Tsunamis from researchers all over the world. How Tsunamis are formed, where they may strike, their likelihood of occurrence of any significance, their characteristics and ways in which their potentially devastating effects may perhaps be mitigated, are questions that many researchers are seeking answers to.

Whilst Tsunamis are not an entirely new phenomena, and a significant amount of scientific literature can be found that addresses many of these questions (Bryant, 2001), it is clear that much still needs to be done to gain a better understanding of Tsunami wave-structure interaction effects on buildings and building elements n a key issue with respect to structure integrity and survival against the effects of a Tsunami. Indian Ocean Tsunami (26th December 2004) The Indian Ocean tsunami (sometimes called the Boxing Day tsunami in the UK) was caused by a 9. 1 magnitude earthquake.

The earthquake occurred under the Indian Ocean NW of the Indonesian island of Sumatra. The earthquake was at a depth of 30km and caused a huge rupture that triggered waves of up to 30m in height. The giant tsunami affected many countries around the Indian Ocean. The hardest hit was Indonesia, where up to 170,000 people were killed (exact figures are unknown because many bodies were never recovered). In total about 230,000 people are believed to have lost their lives, with a further 125,000 injured and over 1. 5 million displaced (again these figure vary because not all bodies were recovered or injured recorded).

The tsunami killed locals and tourists alike, many tourists were killed because they were on beaches or in hotels near the beach. Many local who work in the tourism or fishing industry were also effected. In many fishing villages fatalities were actually higher amongst women, because many men were at sea fishing (if you are out of sea, past where the sea bed shallows, tsunami actually appear as big ripples and will not destroy the boats). The Indian Ocean tsunami triggered one of the biggest humanitarian efforts of all time. Below is a summary of some of the different responses at different scales.