S.O.A.P Analysis for the ten essays Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 4

S.O.A.P Analysis for the ten essays - Essay Example Once being an ordinary man the narrator could enjoy sensitively the beauty of the sunset on the river but since he became an adept in steamboating he started reading rivers like signs: â€Å"Now when I have mastered the language of the water, and had come to know every trifling feature that bordered the great river as familiarly as I knew the letters of the alphabet, I had made a valuable acquisition†. (100) The author supposes that each and every person can share this experience that is why the auditory is broad. Twain refers to personal experience of every adult. As an example besides his steamboating the author mentions probably one of the most evident professions for such issues- doctors. The author thinks how doctors perceive people knowing so much about person`s body: â€Å"What does the lovely flush in a beauty`s cheek mean to a doctor but a â€Å"break† that ripples above some deadly disease?†. However, this comparison can be applied to every person with broaden consciousness and awareness (96). On the one hand, the author wants to feel compassion for his lost ability to see beauty of the most ordinary things. This observation is painful for him and he regrets that the knowledge of steamboiling made him â€Å"read† nature instead of â€Å"drinking† it. He applies his argument to the doctor`s work: â€Å"Since those days, I have pitied doctors from my heart†. On the other hand, the writer understands that such changes of perception are inevitable for human and he addresses the reader with a rhetorical question: â€Å"And doesn`t he (a doctor) sometimes wonder whether he has gained most or lost most by learning this trade?† (106). The author describes his previous pure perception of the river first. This picture is full of beautiful details: â€Å"A broad expanse of the river was turned to blood; in the middle distance the

Solutions to Stress Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Solutions to Stress - Essay Example Some people develop socio-psychological problems, resulting in low confidence and low adjustment within the given paradigm. Thus, ‘stress’ is the emotional instability in the face of adverse situations. Stress can be broadly defined as ‘the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed upon them’ (HSE, 2001). The more contemporary and scientifically accepted definition recognizes stress as the ‘perceived pressure that exceeds one’s ability to cope’ within the pre-defined socio-psychological parameters (Palmer, Cooper & Thomas, 2006). The cognitive reality of stress has different level of adjustment and therefore, stress level of every person is different. Stress is often perceived as an act of defense against an imagined or actual injustice or threat or it may be an expression of frustration for one’s own inability to face certain situations of life in a manner that would effectively alleviate pain. The diversity of reasons may be attributed to stress that may result in harming others or oneself because a person loses his ability of objectivity and rationale when he or she is under stress. Hence, stress is not good for our welfare and needs to be rationalized to find its root cause and thereby find best measures to control it. The psychological well being is important part of healthy life. Life is not a smooth road and the various obstacles in one’s life may or may not become countless reasons for people to have emotional stress. The traumatic events, the unexpected changes in our personal and professional life or even small things that may not be to our liking may constitute reasons for stress. Insecurities in life may also become key factors for stress. Sometimes, the reason cannot be attributed to one single entity but may be a result of accumulated events or adverse situations that could have reached the limit of

Recording, Analysing and using HR information Essay Example for Free

Recording, Analysing and using HR information Essay It is extremely important for all organisations to record and store data for a number of reasons, one significant reason being to satisfy legal requirements. Government agencies such as HMRC, Department of Work Pensions and the Health Safety Executive to name but a few, can demand information from organisations at any time. Pay, tax and employee data needs to be accurately recorded and monitored by HR, in order to ensure employees are being treated fairly and organisations are compliant. Relevant legislation would include the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 with regard to pay, working hours are restricted under the Working Time regulations and safe working practices and conditions are outlined under the Health Safety at work Act 1974. Failure to comply with this legislation can lead to errors, accidents, increased absence, breakdown of the psychological contract, poor employee engagement, poor retention rates, a bad corporate reputation and can result in serious financial consequences such as fines, legal action or closure of business in extreme cases. Another reason that organisations collect HR data is for monitoring levels of employee sickness and absence. According to the CIPD’s 2013 Annual Survey Report on Absence Management, organisations reported employees absent between 6 and 8. 7 days each per annum at an average annual cost to the business of ? 595 per employee due to a lack of resource and productivity. As can be seen, hours lost due to sickness and absence can cost organisations a huge amount of time and money every year and attendance data collected can be used for Occupational Health investigations or capability reviews with the employee, especially should multiple instances of absence occur or a pattern emerges. Attendance data can also help to spot patterns and trends which can pinpoint other less obvious causes for absence. Poor line management, workplace bullying, poor motivation, a training need or a welfare issue can often be the cause of recurrent, short term absence and once highlighted, HR can intervene to offer practical support, advice and guidance to both employees and line managers in order to rectify these issues before they escalate further. Organisations store data collected in two ways. Before the technology boom in the late nineties, manual files (that are written or printed) were widely used but are now less popular, specially in large organisations that are heavily reliant upon technology. The benefits of manual files are that they are cheap to compile with little or no training required to extract information from them. However the downside being they take a large amount of space to store, they have little or no security and if they are destroyed or damaged, the information is permanently lost. Electronic storage on computer hard drives, shared drives, memory sticks, internet, intranet, dvd and so on is now the preferred method due to the many benefits. It is easier to input and update information on a computer, the information can be quickly distributed to a vast amount of recipients via email, can be easily manipulated and formatted for reporting purposes in various applications, doesn’t take up any physical office space and can be secured and protected via encryption programmes or passwords. Of course, data can be highly sensitive, confidential and valuable and therefore it is crucial organisations are responsible and compliant when collecting, storing and using this information. There are many pieces of legislation that relate to this such as Limitation Act 1980, The Data Protection Act 1998, Human Rights Act 1998, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Freedom of Information Act 2000, Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Part 11, Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and the UK Borders Act 2007. Two pieces of legislation in particular which are relevant to the everyday uses of HR data within organisations are the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The DPA states that the processing of automated and manual data must comply with seven principles; the data must be used fairly and lawfully, used for limited, specifically stated purposes, used in a way that is relevant and not excessive, must be accurate and up to date, kept no longer than necessary, handled according to data protection rights, kept safe secure and must not be transferred outside the UK without adequate protection. There are guidelines produced by the Information Commissioner detailing the best practice for handling data and maintaining compliance in four areas; Recruitment Selection, Employment records, Monitoring at work and Information about workers health. Subject to certain exceptions (as detailed in Schedule 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998) employees have the right to access their records and also employers must seek the permission of he individual concerned before releasing any information to a 3rd party. Under the DPA, employers must keep certain data for specific statutory periods of time and once this has expired destruction of data must take place securely and effectively. The FOIA 2000 relates only to information gathered, stored and used in the Public sector (NHS, Government departments, Local Authorities, Police forces etc) and information held in the private sector on behalf of public organisations. It aims to improve accountability and provide transparency within organisations that spend public money. This gives the public the right to access all information including emails, documents, letters and notes, without any relation to themselves and without needing to provide a reason. The request can be denied only if it contravenes the Data Protection Act, harms national security or is not in the ‘public interest’ but even then a refusal has to be valid, reasonable, explained and an edited version released.

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.

The Dark Side of Facebook Essay -- Social Networking, Pro Con Essays

Today, students rely on social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram more than they rely on food to nourish their bodies. An average Facebook user wastes over 18.5 hours a month on social networking sites. It is noticeable that the more attention students are giving these social networks, the more poorly they do in school. Younger students carelessly expose all their personal information on these social networks. Also, as these sites continue to grow so does cyber bullying. Schools that contain grades k-12 should block internet access to social networks because they have a negative impact on the academic performance of students, they make students more prone to dangers on the internet, and they are the main locations of cyber bullying. Social networking sites frequently have a negative impact on the academic performance of students. Sanzhar Nayzabekov says in her article â€Å"Negative impact of social networking sites on academic performance of students†, found on the website Academia.edu, â€Å"Despite the fact that a relatively large number of social network sites including Facebook were initially created for learning purposes, there is some evidence that most social network site users show almost no attitudes towards finding academic information† (6). In fact, the use of these social networks often results in lower grades. For example, Naizabekov also says a large amount of Facebook users check their Facebook a significant amount of times throughout the day while updating their statuses more than 5 times per day (4). With that being said, it is quite hard for a student focusing on status updates and what’s new on the social media during class period to be focused on what is be ing taught in class... ...ality of cyberbullying laws: keeping the online playground safe for both teens and free speech." Vanderbilt Law Review Apr. 2010: 845+. LegalTrac. Web. 15 Nov. 2014 . Kirschner, Paul, and Aryn Karpinski. â€Å"Facebook and Academic Performance.† Computers and Human Behavior 26.6 (Nov. 2010): 1237-1245. ACM Digital Library. Web. 10 Nov. 2014 . Nayzabekov, Sanzhar. â€Å"Negative impact of social networking sites on academic performance of students.† Academia.edu. N.p., 20 Apr. 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2014 . "Scams Online." All Hands 09 1999: 42-3. ProQuest. Web. 18 Nov. 2014 Tarantino, Kristen, et al. â€Å"Effects of Student Engagement with Social Media on Student Learning: A Review of Literature† StudentAffairs.com. StudentAffairs.com, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2014 . Wolak, Janis, et al. "Online â€Å"predators† and their victims." Psychology of violence 1 (2010): 13-35. Web. 10 Nov. 2014 .

Shakespeares Macbeth does not Follow Aristotles Standards for a Trage

Macbeth does not Follow Aristotle's Standards for a Tragedy There have been many great tragic authors throughout history: Aeschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles from ancient Greece; Corneille and Hugo from France; Grillparzer and Schiller from Germany; and Marlowe, Webster, and Shakespeare from England. From this long list of men, Shakespeare is the most commonly known. Many Shakespearean critics agree that Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet are great tragedies. Many critics also claim that Macbeth is a tragedy, but if one follows Aristotle's standards for a tragedy, Macbeth would not be a tragedy To really determine if Macbeth is a tragedy according to Aristotle, one must first look at his guidelines. The majority of Aristotle's standards relate to the downfall of the central character. To set the character up for a downfall, Aristotle thought he or she should be of the middle class. This was because he felt the poor had nothing to lose. He also felt the downfall should be caused by a fatal flaw. Another characteristic Aristotle believed was important, was a conflict between the central character and a close friend or relative. According to him, the main character should also have an enlightenment at the moment of his or her downfall. Aristotle also believed that the feelings of pity and fear should be felt by the audience during the play. He thought that these feelings would lead to a catharsis, or release of emotions. Although most of Aristotle's characteristics of a tragedy had to do with the downfall, he had two that did not. First, he thought the central character should not be totally good or evil. This was based on the belief that the ruin of a totally good character would be too painful, and the ruin of a totally bad char... ... not even thank is wife for the plan that made him king. Due to Malcolm's final speech, the reader is left with positive, not negative feelings. Overall Macbeth is not a tragedy according the Aristotle's standards. Macbeth's downfall does follow the guidelines: he has something to lose, he has a downfall, and he has conflicts with his friends and relatives during his downfall. But, the heart of the play, which is the emotions created, just do not follow Aristotle's standards. The reader should feel pity, and grieve. Yet, there is no reason to feel this way because Macbeth is all evil, and in the end, the "good guy" is restored to power. Shakespeare put forth good effort in trying to make Macbeth a tragedy, but he came up too short. Works Cited: Shakespeare, William. â€Å"Macbeth.† The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Ed. David Bevington. New York: Longman, 1997.

Cam Therapeutics Modalities Paper

CAM Therapeutics Modalities Paper Shakita A Hunter SCI/201 October 31, 2011 Macharia Waruingi CAM Therapeutics Modalities Paper Individuals have taken the option to take better care of themselves by taking steps to improve their health. The complementary and alternative medicine, otherwise known as CAM, is a group made up of practices, products, medical and healthcare systems with diverse backgrounds. The different practices of CAM are grouped in different categories associated with â€Å"natural products, mind and body medicine, and manipulative and body-based practices†(NCCAM,2011). The purpose of this essay is to defined alternative medicine, complementary medicine and integrative medicine. It will describe how conventional medicine plays a role in these three types of medicine. In addition, the essay will further discuss the philosophy of CAM; how it relates to conventional Western medicine as well as describes the five domains of therapies. Finally, the essay will describe one CAM treatment modality within the five domains if therapies and how it meets the definition of alternative, complementary, or integrative therapy. When discussing complementary medicine, it is referred to as standard care. It is proven to be safe and effective. â€Å"Complementary medicine includes techniques such as acupuncture, herbal medicine, massage, support groups, and yoga†(NCCAM,2011). This type of medicine can affect an individual’s physical being, spiritual being, emotional being, and social being. It can help a person’s immune system become more healthier and it can also have the ability to fight off a disease. Outside of the realm of conventional medicine, there is another form of medicine that is called alternative medicine. With alternative medicine, individuals are require to do a bit more work. Alternative medicine includes a broad range of practices. Some healing therapies are based on Ancient Chinese beliefs, like acupuncture and the use of certain herbal compounds. Others focus on Hindu, or Ayurvedic, therapies including diet changes, the practice of yoga, and emphasizing the connection of mind, body, and spirit†( Ellis-Christensen,2011). With alternative m edicine, the negative side effects almost do not exist. People may want to go to a Wal-mart or pharmacy to purchase herbs, vitamins, or other supplements and can get them at a reasonable price. Many of these herbs, supplements and produce are the basis of much of alternative medicine which is overlooked for the most part in terms of their health benefits. One form of natural, alternative medicine that is frequently used by many comes in the convenient form of tea. The herbal teas Echinacea and Chamomile naturally help support the body’s immune system. Whether for sore muscles, the stomach flu, or a cold, herbal teas can suppress the illness until the symptoms have passed and wellness has been restored. Integrative medicine is a combination of conventional Western medicine with complementary and alternative medicine or treatments. The various techniques that can be utilized from both complementary and alternative treatments are all in the effort to treat the person in whole. For any integrative medicine program, the goal for the physician is to truly bring together â€Å" allopathic medicine with mind-body-spirit modalities with the ultimate goal of helping patients or individuals adapt to traditional medical treatments. The modalities directly affects the body’s physiological healing process while gently awakening the mind-body-spirit connection needed to enhance the healing process†(Beaumont Health Systems, 2011). Within the complementary and alternative medical practices are healthcare practices that are part of conventional practices. â€Å"NCCAM groups CAM practices within five major domains, acknowledging that other groupings are possible: native medical systems, (2) mind-body interventions, (3) biologically based treatments, (4) manipulative and body-based methods, and (5) energy therapies†(NCCAM,2011). Alternative medical systems are practiced through various cultures in the world. The Asian medical systems use traditional techniques such as acupuncture, oriental massage, herbal medicine, and other energy therapy to promote healing. As mentioned before, Ayurveda is a traditional medicine of India. Homeopathy is a traditional medicine developed in Germany as well as naturop athy. All traditional medicines are considered to be a part of the complete alternative medical system. * Mind-body interventions have a variety of healing techniques that are designed to make the mind’s capacity easier to process bodily functions and symptoms. These techniques include art therapy, dance, hypnosis, music, and prayer. * With biologically based therapies, it involves the use of dietary supplements and special diet therapies. â€Å"Biological therapies include, for example, the use of laetrile and shark cartilage to treat cancer and bee pollen to treat autoimmune and inflammatory diseases†(NCCAM,2011). * Manipulative and body-based methods have treatments such as full body massage. Physicians in the field of osteopathy use body manipulation to reduce pain, promote health and well-being, and restores function. Overall, it helps the body to become more calm and relaxed. Lastly, energy therapies help the body heal from other energy sources, An example of an energy therapy is biofield and bioelectromagnetic-based therapy. These therapies are used as treatments for cancer, asthma as well as manage pain due to migraine headaches. Complementary and alternative medicines are used to promote health and prosperity. It is the way of life. All cultures have their own way of treating illness but at the end of the day, it would leave a person healthier mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically. References Beaumont Health Systems. (2011). Integrative Medicine. Retrieved from http://www. beaumont. edu/integrative-medicine Ellis-Christensen, T. (09/29/2011). What is Alternative Medicine? Retrieved from http://www. wisegeek. com/what-is-alternative-medicine. htm National Center for Alternative and Complementary Medicine. (July 2011). What Is Complementary and Alternative Medicine? Retrieved from http://nccam. nih. gov/health/whatiscam/ National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. (2011). MAJOR DOMAINS OF COMPLEMENTAR Y AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE. Retrieved from http://nccam. nih. gov/about/plans/fiveyear/fiveyear. pdf