Talent Identification Sport Basketball Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Talent Identification Sport Basketball - Essay Example Once the talent is identified, there are various measures these institutions undertake to help develop the talents spotted into developmental implications in the society. Basketball like any other sport finds success in the UK via institutions that promote the development of the talent (Williams & Franks, 1998, p 162). The support issued to develop talents is injected to the disciplines that are the target of promotion via funds that are relayed by separate bodies. The UK Sport is one body that has invested 100 million pounds annually in athletes to promote success especially in the forthcoming games scheduled for London this year. This paper seeks to highlight attributes that are applied in talent development the facilities involved, and the staff promoting the discipline, basketball to be specific. In the identification of the basketball talent, there needs to be physiological and various tactical abilities to assess the performance of the athlete (Solomon et al, 1996, p 43). There must be physical fitness involved and a stable medical condition that would enable the subject under consideration to meet the desired expectation (Young et al, 1977, p 243). The coaching staffs is usually charged with the role of identifying the proper physical, and tactical attributes while fitness is determined by the medicine staff or trained individuals capable of correcting or assessing the entity. Basketball requires certain skill and the proper height to be applied in playing the sport. Most subjects should be energetic and lack excessive body fat that may impair mobility, and reduce overall performance (Randak, 1998, p 47). Coaching has been earmarked as the major avenue for development according to UK sport. There are international standards set for the coaches as a quality to meet before they can be accorded uncommon freedom to oversee the nurturing of the talent. Basketball, as indicated requires specific rules. Apart from, the tall

Should Courts Lift the Corporate Veil?

Should Courts Lift the Corporate Veil? The doctrine laid down in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd has to be watched very carefully. It has often been supposed to cast a veil over the personality of a limited company through which the courts cannot see. But that is not true. The courts can and often do draw aside the veil. They can and often do pull off the mask. They look to see what really lies behind. The legislature has shown the way with group accounts and the rest. And the courts should follow suit. I think that we should look at the Fork company and see it as it really is the wholly owned subsidiary of the tax payers. It is the creature, the puppet of the taxpayers in point of fact, and it should be so regarded in point of law. Per Lord Denning MR, Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd v I.R.C. [1969] 3 All ER 855 1.0  Introduction This dissertation will discuss the principles of limited liability and corporate personality and the courts’ reluctance to disregard the corporate veil the principle called â€Å"piercing the Corporate Veil†. We shall consider the circumstances in which the Courts have been able to pierce the veil of incorporation and the reasons as to why they have in most cases upheld the decision in Solomon v Solomon & Co[1]. All companies in the United Kingdom have to be registered and incorporated under the Companies Act which governs the principle of limited liability hence giving the owners or shareholders a curtain against liability from creditors in the case of the company falling into financial troubles. This curtain so created gives the company a separate legal personality so that it can sue and be sued in its own right and the only loss to the owners or shareholders is the number of shares held in the company on liquidation with no effect on their personal assets. This distinct separation between the owners or shareholders and the limited company is the concept referred to as the ‘veil of incorporation’ or ‘corporate veil’. In conclusion, it shall be argued that the courts should lift or pierce the corporate veil to a significantly greater extent so as to hold erring shareholders or directors of a corporation liable for the debts or liabilities of the corporation despite the general principle of limited liability were the corporation has insufficient assets to off-set the creditor liabilities. 2.0  Limited liability and Corporate Personality The principles of limited liability and corporate personality are the cornerstone of the United Kingdom company law since the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844, its consolidation in 1856[2] and the introduction of the Limited Liability Act 1855. These two principles have been so guarded by the courts as being fundamental to today’s company law by upholding the separate legal personality of a corporate entity. However, whilst the original intention of the legislation was to help companies raise capital through the issue of shares without exposing the shareholders to risk beyond the shares held, the present attraction to incorporating a company is the advantage of shielding behind the curtain of limited liability which could be abused by some businessmen. 2.1  Companies Act 2006 Article 3 (1) provides that a company is a â€Å"limited company† if the liability of its members is limited by its constitution. Article 7 (2) provides that a company may not be so formed for an unlawful purpose. Article 16 (2) The subscribers to the memorandum, together with such other persons as may from time to time become members of the company, are a body corporate by the name stated in the certificate of incorporation. (3) That body corporate is capable of exercising all the functions of an incorporated company. 2.2  Limited liability As stated above, the doctrine of limited liability was introduced by the Limited Liability Act 1855 as a means by which companies could raise capital by selling company shares without exposing the shareholders to unlimited liability.[3] The principle of limited liability shields the company owners, shareholders and directors or managers against personal liability in the event of the company winding up or becoming insolvent. In such an event the liability of its owners and shareholders is limited to the individual shareholding held as provided for by the Companies Act 2006 and the Insolvency Act 1986[4]. This means that the members of a company do not have to contribute their personal assets to the company assets to meet the obligations of the company to its creditors on its liquidation but have to contribute the full nominal value of the shares held by individual shareholders. It should be noted here that such limited liability does not shield the limited company from liability until all its debts or assets are exhausted. This principle has so been held since the House of Lords ruling in the Solomon case[5] in which the Lords where of the view that the motives behind the formation of a corporation was irrelevant in determining its rights and liabilities as long as all the requirements of registration are complied with and the company is not formed for an unlawful purpose[6]. Much as a limited company has a separate legal personality, its decisions are made by directors and managers who should use the powers conferred unto them by the company board of directors and the memorandum and articles of association[7], and any abuse will entail personal liability by the officer concerned. Limited liability encompasses both the small enterprise including one-man companies[8] and big companies hence limiting the liabilities to company assets and not to any other personal assets.[9] This view has been endorsed in recent times through numerous cases as evidenced in a one-man company, Lee’s Air Farming. Lee was the majority shareholder and director in the company in which he was also the employee. He was killed on duty in an air accident and the court held that Lee and the company were two separate entities and hence entitled to compensation.[10] The courts will only in exceptional circumstances such as abuse, fraud or where the company was used as an agent of its owner disregard the doctrine of limited liability and hold members, shareholders or directors personally liable for the debts and other company obligations to the creditors in what has been termed the piercing or lifting of the veil of incorporation. However, there are several statutory laws which allow for the principle of limited liability to be ignored in such situations as in the reporting of financial statements of group companies[11], corporate crime and insolvency[12] which we shall discuss below. 2.3  Corporate Personality A limited company is a legal person[13] with an existence which is separate and independent from its members as long as all the formalities of registration are adhered with in line with the Act. The corporate identity entails the company can sue and be sued in its own right without affecting its owners’ or shareholders’ rights. It is trite law that the only plaintiff to a wrong done to a company is prima facie company itself and not its shareholders[14] except in instances where there is a fraud against shareholders or the acts complained of are illegal. The company has been held as having an independent legal corporate personality since it was first held in the case of Solomon v A Solomon & Co Ltd[15]. To emphasise this point, Lord Macnaghten said that it seemed impossible â€Å"to dispute that once the company is legally incorporated it must be treated like any other independent person with its rights and liabilities appropriate to itself, and that the motives of those who took part in the promotion of the company are absolutely irrelevant in discussing what those rights and liabilities are.[16] In this case, Solomon registered his company into a limited company under the Companies Act[17] which required a minimum of seven (7) members for incorporation. Solomon became the major shareholder with his wife and children holding a share each but the company ran into financial problems leaving no assets for the unsecured creditors on liquidation. Whilst the court of appeal held the company to be a ‘sham’ and an alias, trustee or nominee for Solomon and that the transaction was contrary to the true intent of the Companies Act[18] the House of Lords reversed this decision and held that the company had been validly registered as required by the Act and hence had a separate legal personality from the shareholders. In arriving at this decision, Lord Macnaghten said that, â€Å"The company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.Nor are the subscribers, as members liable, in any shape or form, except to the extent and in the manner provided by the Act.† This decision shows that the House of Lords identified that the important factor was the observance of the requirements and formalities of the Act which safeguarded the principles of limited liability and corporate personality.  To date, this is the correct interpretation of the Company’s Act and it is important that the principle in maintained in the advancement of commerce. It should be noted here that the principle of corporate personality does not affect the company creditors to a large extent as far as the recovery of the debts is concerned. Following the decision in the Solomon case, Professor Gower has described a limited company as being ‘opaque and impassable’[19], whilst on the other hand it was described as ‘calamitous’[20]. Some commentators suggest that courts have been more inclined to the maintenance of the sanctity of the separate legal integrity of a company and have resisted the common law resolution of â€Å"peering under the skirts of a company to examine its linen (dirty or otherwise)†[21] as can be observed from the numerous cases since the Solomon case. The foregoing shows the importance to commerce of the incorporation of a company as it allows for continuity of the business transactions despite any changes in the owners, administrators, directors or shareholders of the company. However, common law has in some exceptional instances ignored this principle in stances of abuse or fraudulent use of a sham corporate structure. The courts have ignored the corporate sham structure and peer behind the veil to identify the â€Å"directing mind and will† that control the company and such intervention being termed as lifting the veil, cloak[22] or mask[23]. Whilst the courts have at times pierced the veil to benefit creditors when a company is placed under liquidation, there has been reluctance by the same courts to pierce the veil in instances which could have favourable results for shareholders.[24] 3.0  One-man Limited Companies The Council Directive 89/667[25] provides for the formation of one-man private companies hence moving away from the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856 requirements. This Directive highlights the advancement in commerce and as can be indentified from the Solomon case, Mr Solomon was the owner of the company and only registered the other six shares for his wife and children to fulfil the requirements of the Act. The company owner in these one-man corporations would in most instances also be the director in which case some unscrupulous individuals could escape liability for their own misconduct by holding assets in the name of the corporation. The courts are prepared to pierce the corporate veil in a one man company so as to be enabled to treat assets of the company as â€Å"property held by the defendants† were the company is held to be an alter ego of the owner.[26] However, the courts have shown that they are not prepared to pierce the corporate veil even in one-man limited companies as long as they are properly registered as required by the Act. In the case lee v Lee’s  Air Farming[27] mentioned above, Mr Lee incorporated Lee’s Farming Limited and was the director and controlling officer as an employee of the company. On his death in an air crush whilst on duty and the family claimed workers’ compensation. The court held that the company and Mr Lee were distinct and separate entities and hence Mr Lee was a worker in his own company. Hence we see here the court’s upholding of the principle set down by the rule in Solomon v Solomon[28] which has remained controversial[29] with changing commercial activity and globalisation. The courts have been more willing to pierce the veil in one-man companies were the owner of the company is usually the controlling officer and does not deal with the company at arm’s length. In the case of Wallersteiner v Moir[30], Lord Denning held that the subsidiaries were controlled by Dr Wallersteiner making them â€Å"puppets† which â€Å"danced to his bidding†. Lord Denning is pointing out here that whilst the subsidiaries appeared to have a separate personality, they were in reality his agents or sham companies with no existence of their own and hence warranted the piercing of the veil. This principle of corporate personality as established in the Salomon case has been extended to groups companies which we shall look at below. 4.0  Group Companies Group companies comprise of the parent company with its subsidiaries carrying on their businesses not as a common enterprise or â€Å"single economic unit†[31], though portraying it as such to the outside world. The principle of limited liability applies to the subsidiary companies so formed as they are registered companies under the Act and as such each has a separate legal personality to the parent company and hence can sue and be sued in their own right. The advantage of this arrangement to the group is that it limits liability to each subsidiary company in the group whilst sharing the group profits for the benefit of the group structure. Such group structures can lead to the parent company forming subsidiary companies to run its risky part of the business and hence insulating itself from liability in the event of the subsidiary company failing to meet its obligations to the creditors.[32] The effect of corporate personality in group companies is that each entity is legally independent and separate from other subsidiaries and the parent, hence each entity being liable for its own debts,[33] which affirms the Solomon principle. Lord Justice Slade said: â€Å"Our law, for better or worse, recognises the creation of subsidiary companies, which though in one sense the creatures of their parent companies, will nevertheless under the general law fall to be treated as separate legal entities with all the rights and liabilities which would normally attach to separate legal entities†.[34] This is still the law and an affirmation of the principle in the Solomon case. In the case of Ord & Another v Belhaven Pubs Ltd,[35] the proprietors of a company which was in the business of acquiring old pub premises, doing them up and then letting them to tenants, duly let a renovated pub building to Ord. There had been misrepresentations made by the company as to the potential profitability of the premises which only came to light some time later. By the time Belhaven Pubs Ltd had ceased trading and could not meet its debts. Ord sought leave to substitute the parent company. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant company which had granted the lease was legitimate and had not been a mere faà §ade for the holding company and hence could not be substituted. This basic principle of separate legal identity has been re-affirmed more recently in the Court of Appeal decision in Adams v Cape Industries PLC[36]. In this case, the defendant company was a member of a corporate group with a UK parent company. The employees in its US subsidiaries were injured by inhaling asbestos dust and had successfully sued the subsidiaries in US courts. They applied to enforce judgement against the parent company arguing that Cape had been present in the USA through its subsidiaries as they formed a â€Å"single economic unit†. The Court declined to pierce the corporate veil and held that the â€Å"fundamental principle is that each company in a group of companies is a separate legal entity possessed of separate legal rights and liabilities†¦Ã¢â‚¬  The principle in the case of Salomon was upheld on the basis that the subsidiary companies had been legitimately formed and hence were separate legal entities distinct from the parent company. 5.1  The Directing Mind A registered company is a separate and distinct legal entity, a body corporate[37] possessing rights and made subject to duties being able to sue and be sued in its own right. In the case of Lennard’s Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd[38], the court held that, â€Å"a corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own any more than it has a body of its own; its active and directing will must consequently be sought in the person of somebody who for some purposes may be called an agent, but who is really the directing mind and will of the corporation, the very ego and centre of the personality of the corporation†¦..† So we see here that the courts are willing to look behind the corporate veil as a matter of law so as to establish the directing officer behind the decisions and actions taken by the company. The directing mind of a corporation is the senior person whose authority is derived from the companys board of directors to perform the functions of the company as directed and for the benefit of the company.[39] In the course of business, such senior persons would then delegate their authority to other employees for the efficient running of the company in which case such employees’ actions or inactions would be considered as those of the â€Å"directing mind†. Lord Reid further went on to define the â€Å"directing mind and will† of the company as the person who acts for the company as he acts as â€Å"the company and his mind which directs his acts is the mind of the company.†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. He is not acting as a servant, representative, agent or delegate. He is an embodiment of the company or, one could say, he hears and speaks through the persona of the company, within his appropriate sphere, and his mind is the mind of the company. If it is a guilty mind then that guilt is the guilt of the company.†[40] Therefore, this would mean that the â€Å"directing mind and will† of the company is any employee who performs certain functions for the corporation as long as he has the authority to do so and does not act outside his mandate in which case he will be held personally liable[41]. In Williams and another v. Natural life health foods ltd and mistlin,[42] the case of a small one-person company, Sir Patrick Russell in his dissenting judgment pointed out that â€Å"the managing director will almost inevitably be the one possessed of qualities essential to the functioning of the company†, but that in itself does not mean that the director is willing to be personally liable to the companys customers. Therefore to convict a company, the court will go behind the status of the separate legal entity distinction so as to establish the â€Å"directing mind and will† of the company controlling its activities[43]. However, it has been identified that the principle of limited liability can be subject to abuse and in the circumstances were there is statute will not provide justice or equity, the courts have in such exceptional circumstances disregarded the principle and held the shareholders or directors accountable for their decisions in the running of the company. The process in which the courts have disregarded the principle of limited liability is called â€Å"piercing the corporate veil† which is the main discussion of this document. 5.2  Tortious Liability The company is vicariously liable for any torts committed by its employees or agents whilst acting in the course of the official duties and ‘shall not be called into question on the ground of lack of capacity’[44] whilst the employee or agent remains the primary tortfeasor[45]. It is therefore clear that the â€Å"directing mind and will† can sometimes be personally liable for torts, for which the company is also liable, for their fraudulent acts though done on behalf of the company. 4.3  Criminal Liability The Barrow Borough Council case is thought to be the first prosecution of a local authority for corporate manslaughter. To convict a company of corporate manslaughter, the prosecution must prove the companys conduct, which led to the deaths, was the conduct of a senior person in the company—the directing mind (also often referred to as the controlling mind). In practical terms, this means that for a company to be guilty of corporate manslaughter a senior person (normally a director) also has to be guilty of manslaughter. The difficulty with these cases, particularly against larger companies with layers of management, is proving a causal link between the conduct (or lack of it) of the directing mind and the incident that caused death. 6.0  The Corporate Veil The corporate veil is the curtain that legally separates the company from its shareholders hence holding the company as having a separate legal personality and limited liability. In curtailing any abuses of limited liability and the protection of creditors to both small and group companies, the courts have in certain instances, though reluctantly, looked behind the corporate veil to establish the true intent of the controlling officers of the company. The courts have in the rare circumstances ignored the corporate form and looked at the business realities of the situation so as to prevent the deliberate evasion of contractual obligations, to prevent fraud or other criminal activities and in the interest of public policy and morality. Piercing the corporate veil has not been complicated in one-man companies were the owner is usually the director and hence the controlling officer as compared to group companies which have a layered structure. The controlling officer[46] will be held liable and asked to account for his actions so that the company can fulfil its financial obligations to its creditors in the event of company insolvency. In the case of Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan[47] made clear. 6.1  Lifting the Corporate Veil The corporate veil is a curtain that shields company shareholders and directors from personal liability by the principle of limited liability in the event of the company being insolvent and unable to fulfil its obligations. The lifting of the corporate veil concept describes a legal decision where the limited company shareholders or directors are held liable for the debts or other liabilities of the corporation contrary to the principle of limited liability. Whilst there is strict liability legislation to prosecute erring limited companies for statutory offences but were there is insufficient statutory protection, the common law remedy of piercing of the corporate veil is imposed by the courts so as to put liability on the controlling officer (directing mind) of the corporation. However, the courts have been reluctant to rebut the principle of limited liability and only in exceptional circumstances have they been willing to pierce the corporate veil to establish the true facts. In this way, certain individuals or parent-companies responsible for the company’s actions are held liable so at to account for their decisions as shareholders or directors. Generally, the UK corporate law holds that the shareholders, directors or parent-companies are not liable for corporate obligations of the companies or subsidiaries they control hence maintaining the principles of limited liability and separate legal corporate personality. The principles of separate legal personality and limited liability have been long recognised in English law[48] and that the shareholders or directors are not liable for the debts of the company as long as it is properly administered.[49] However, in exceptional circumstances[50], the courts have been prepared to look behind the company and establish the actions or inactions of the directors and shareholders using the process known as â€Å"piercing the corporate veil†. Piercing the corporate veil is the process whereby the court ignores the principle of corporate personality and holds the shareholders or directors liable for their actions so that they meet the company obligations in their personal capacities.  The courts will pierce or the â€Å"veil† were the corporate structure has been used as an instrument of fraud or to circumvert the law.[51] It has been argued that whilst the courts have used the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil though reluctantly, it is still not well understood leading to uncertainties in the legal process.[52] Some commentators have argued that the exceptional circumstances in which the courts have justified the piercing of the corporate veil is uncertain as evidenced by the number of contradictory decisions by the courts.[53]  Goulding[54] further argues that ‘it is not possible to distil any single principle from the decided cases as to when the courts will lift the veil’ due to the diversity of the cases, though they are more willing in cases of extreme abuse.[55] In the leading case on this subject, Solomon v Solomon[56] discussed above, the House of Lords maintained that â€Å"individuals could organise their affairs as they wanted and that if they chose to do so via incorporation they were entitled to the protection of limited liability as long as the incorporation was in accordance with the formal rules of the relevant legislation†. Though it is English trite law that the incorporation of a company protects the members from company liability by the principle of limited liability, there are both statutory and common law exceptions to the principle in cases of abuse of the corporate structure. 7.0  Statutory Exceptions Gower and Davies[57] argue that the courts are willing to lift the veil were statutory wording of a particular statute[58] is explicit as Parliament intended. The courts have resisted the temptation to pierce the veil because they consider it just to do so[59] though they are more willing in exceptional circumstances or were they feel that the shareholders or directors are concealing the true facts[60]. However, the courts have been reluctant to lift the veil were the statute does not specifically provide for it. There are various Acts which specifically provide for the lifting of the corporate veil and as such are strict and have to be followed. Following are a few examples of both civil and criminal liability imposed on limited companies. Companies Act 2006 sections 398 and 399 Group of companies Although each company is a separate legal person, section 399 (2) requires that the parent company prepares group accounts at the end of the financial year so as to â€Å"give a true and fair view of the assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss†. This Act looks at the group of companies as a ‘single economic entity’ and in effect lifting the corporate veil which goes against the principles of corporate personality and limited liability.

Physics of Water Waves :: Lab Report

All waves possess the properties of reflection, refraction, diffraction and interference. These phenomena's were observed with the use of a ripple tank. A ripple tank consists of a large rectangular tray with a transparent bottom. Water is placed in this tan to a depth of approximately one centimeter. A light source is then placed above the tray of water. When the water is disturbed it can be seen on a white surface positioned under the tray. The first phenomenon observed was reflection. It was found that water waves also follow the law of reflection. As straight waves strike a hard straight surface they are reflected at an angle equal to the angle of incidence. After reflection the wave has the same speed, frequency and wavelength as it did prior to the collision. This is similar to the reflection of circular waves off a straight barrier. The reflected waves are also circular, however they have a centre point that is position behind the barrier. This point is known as the "image" of the source. Reflection of a parabolic or concave barrier can be closely compared to that of light waves off a concave mirror. If the incident wave was straight, the reflected waves are curved, and they converge at a fixed focal point. After passing through the focus, the radius of the curves increase. The opposite is so when circular waves strike a concave barrier. The reflected waves are then straight. The next phenomenon observed was the refraction of water waves. The refraction was demonstrated in the ripple tank by dividing the tank into a deep and shallow region. This was achieved by placing a rectangular object into one end of the tank. When straight waves travel from a deep region of water into a shallow region, it is found that the speed of the waves is slower in the shallower region. Since the frequency of the wave stages the same, it is obvious that there must be a corresponding decrease in wavelength. If the waves pass from deep to shallow water at an angle other than

Modernism and Modernist Literature

Christina Ortega March 30, 2013 Modernism and Modernist Literature Modernism is the movement in visual arts, music, literature, and drama which rejected the old Victorian standards of how art should be made, consumed, and what it should mean. The concept was what is reality? It used art and literature to replicate reality, and traditions cultivated in Romanticism and Victorianism. It was against all traditions. The Modernist Period in English Literature occupied the years from shortly after the beginning of the twentieth century through roughly 1965.The period was marked by sudden and unexpected breaks with traditional ways of viewing and interacting with the world. Experimentation and individualism became virtues, where in the past they were often completely discouraged. In the world of art, generally speaking, Modernism was the beginning of the distinction between â€Å"high† art and â€Å"low† art. Still, the most effective poets and novelists did manage to make deep statements that were absorbed by the whole of society and not just the writer’s inner circles.In Modernist literature, it was the poets who took fullest advantage of the new spirit of the times, and stretched the possibilities of their craft to lengths not previously imagined. In general, there was a disregard for most of the literary making of the last century. The following are characteristics of Modernism: †¢ Marked by a strong and intended break with tradition. This break includes a strong reaction against established religious, political, and social views. †¢ Belief that the world is created in the act of perceiving it; that is, the world is what we say it is. There is no such thing as absolute truth. All things are relative. †¢ No connection with history or institutions. Their experience is that of alienation, loss, and despair. †¢ Life is unordered. †¢ Concerned with the sub-conscious. Ambrose Bierce, turn of the century California's one of th e most notorious writers. Ambrose was known as Bitter Bierce and his motto was â€Å"Nothing Matters†. Although; Bierce's devastating short stories about the War Between the States–most particularly â€Å"An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge†.The first page and a half during which the condemned, Peyton Farquhar, is yet unnamed offers a clear description of a military hanging: how it is done, who stands where and who gives the orders, how gentlemen are not excused from the noose. Farquhar, after his escape, his senses supernaturally alert, notices something that would have been commented upon in the camps of the Civil War: the gray eyes of a sharpshooter. He remembers that he'd heard all of the most famous sharp-shooters have gray eyes.Then it turns out to be a mere dream of thought for Peyton. It was a sudden flash of what he would have wanted to happen. With the end of this story resulting in him seeing his wife at one last glance before the reality of his death. This story was written is a way that I the reader hadn’t quite was able to even distinguish that it was merely a dream of thought till the sudden death. The story was very vivid in detail and descriptive. Portrayed a sense of reality giving aspects of what could have happened.Gave me the reader a moment of shock when figuring out it wasn’t real and he had actually been executed. In conclusion the entire story was a great example of a modernist story. Gave me a great example of how he wrote a short store making me determine the true reality of it. This modernist literature definitely made a social statement. Made you realize how we as people do this all the time. I’ve been in many situations where I can imagine another outcome yet, reality strikes and I realize its happening. Works Cited 1.Lewis, Pericles. The Cambridge Introduction to Modernism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007. Print. 2. Lorcher, Trent. â€Å"Modernism in Literature: What Are Characteristics of M odernism in Writing? † Bright Hub Education. Bright Hub Education, 2 Mar. 2012. Web. 30 Mar. 2013. 3. Rahn, Josh. â€Å"Modernism. † – Literature Periods & Movements. The Literature Network, 2011. Web. 30 Mar. 2013. 4. Stern, Jewel, Kevin W. Tucker, and Charles L. Venable. Modernism in American Silver: 20th-century Design. Dallas, TX: Dallas Museum of Art, 2005. Print.

Professional and Managerial Ethics Caselet Essay

Limaha Inc. is a world-renowned toilet manufacturer founded in 1967. Limaha led the innovation of advanced bathroom utilities and mainly caters to First Class airports and 5-star hotels. The recent Asian economy boom has led to increased demands of Limaha toilet bowls for the business expansion of their loyal clients. In response, the company has decided call for this unprecedented increase in production that must be met as soon as possible.Jenny Panaguiton, the purchasing manager of Limaha’s main office, was tasked to choose a supplier of premium porcelain to be used in the production of their patented No Pressure toilet bowls. This production will include a big production contract with a new posh hotel in the country’s capital whose construction is about to end with the installation of their bathroom fixtures. After careful analysis from 20 suppliers by the purchasing department, Jenny was presented and left to decide between two suppliers: O Mang China and Teddy B. Solutions. O Mang China offered superior porcelain at a high price. This price along with other costs necessary to deliver the porcelain to the production plants was estimated to exceed the company’s budget. Although Limaha can choose to go ahead and allocate more capital for this transaction, it could result to lower company profits if the previously agreed sales price of No Pressure toilet bowls is not increased. If Limaha decides to charge a higher price on their new product, there is a high possibility that the hotel client would back out from the contract and change to another toilet manufacturer for confirmed business ventures next year. Teddy B. Solutions, on the other hand, offered a lower price for the porcelain materials which is well within the company’s budget. Christopher Barrido, the company’s Vice President for Production even greatly encouraged Jenny on choosing Teddy B, as the really low price of the porcelain would bring significant favorable variances in their division’s costs. Not only would their division have a pretty image in front of the Board, there would even be a possible salary increase. He even promised Jenny of a bright future in the company if she makes the right decision. Jenny, however, doubts their VP’s motives, as Christopher would not normally recommend any supplier and would just leave the Purchasing Department on their decisions. She thinks Christopher’s actions have something to do with the generous gifts Christopher has been receiving recently from his long-time friend and classmate, Teddy B. Teddy B’s proposal is highly attractive when just considering the company’s profits. However, the production team who reviewed the samples from Teddy B showed results that were a far cry from O Mang’s porcelain. Materials from Teddy B produced inferior quality toilet bowls. The production team voiced out their concerns through Pie Bread, the production manager. Pie greatly discouraged the use of Teddy B materials to Christopher Barrido, arguing that the use of such materials would greatly affect their quality, and the name of Limaha Inc. could be tarnished through this. They were also very concerned that the hotel might withdraw previous arrangements with Limaha because of the fact that these inferior toilet bowls were simply not appropriate for the posh hotel. Christopher just won’t have any of Pie’s arguments. He argued that the employees under her department were only exaggerating about the quality of the samples. Teddy B has long been in the business of supplying porcelain, so he argued that the problem is not on the materials, but on the workers handling the production who are not being efficient enough to produce at the expected quality. Pie and Christopher’s debate had been long, and word travelled that Pie was even threatened of demotion if results with the Teddy B samples still would not improve. Needless to say, people from production are now pointing daggers to the purchasing department, as their decisions could cause them their jobs. And so Jenny tried to negotiate the price offer of O Mang China and asked for any other possible alternatives their company could have. Its owner, Osmong, however presented her a very outrageous offer. Osmong is her former lover from a very bad and traumatic relationship.  Osmong, feeling bitter, is still deeply in love with Jenny even after she broke up with him six months ago for a number of undisclosed reasons. Since the breakup, Jenny has vowed to never reconcile with this man again. In a desperate attempt to get Jenny back, Osmong offered to significantly reduce their price to go lower than that of Teddy B, if and only if, she agrees to go back together with him again. This new price would mean that there would be no need for a price increase on the No Pressure toilet bowl, and they could even attract more potential long-term customers because of their high-quality products at a really low price.  To add to the list of her worries, Jenny received a note to come to a private meeting in a nearby cafà © with Bea Wing, Limaha’s Internal Auditor. The meeting had been really stressful, as the topic was Teddy B’s alleged recent romantic interest with Jenny. Teddy has been sending Jenny many gifts and invitations to dinners since the start of the year, and they had gone to a few dates. Jenny, however, just treated their relationship as platonic, and concluded that nothing can come out of their business meetings. Bea however would not believe any of it. Bea had been married to Teddy B for three years. Sadly, a gap in their relationship has formed due to their busy schedules. She noticed her husband’s special attention to Jenny, and thought that a possible divorce could be coming to her soon if Jenny continues to â€Å"lead him on† with her business partnerships. Bea thinks that this new materials supplying contract could be the last straw. She later vowed, that if Jenny makes one wrong move on choosing her husband and destroy her marriage, she would definitely destroy her life. Jenny was visibly shaken, given that Bea really has the power to do so, with a few alterations on her department’s financial statement, and some words with Board of Directors regarding her process of choosing the material suppliers. Jenny really has a lot riding in this decision. The company profits, the production employees, her personal relationships, her co-workers, and her own job are at stake in this one important decision of choosing the supplier of porcelain for the No Pressure toilet bowl model. She could not afford to lose her job now, given that it is the only way for her to pay for the medical bills of her five dogs in the hospital. This one decision could make  or break her life. Even more so, she’s not even sure if it is right. What do you think would be the best action to take?