Conflicts of Law Course Outline

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

minority rule in america essays

minority rule in america essays The People Who Control Your Mind: A Look At Minority Rule In America Alexis de Tocqueville discussed how he believed that majority rules in the United States. He writes about how the majority in America has control over the opinions of the masses and how people do not think for themselves. The latter part of that is true. The masses do not form many of their own opinions but these opinions are not given to them, like Tocqueville says, by the majority. These "ready made opinions" (Tocqueville 11) are given to American people by a powerful few. Tocquville's writing does not apply to the US today because several kinds of minorities wield inordinate amounts of power in modern American society. The media is the main source of information for America today. Tocqueville would call the media the "intellectual authority"(Tocqueville 13) in America. "Everybody there adopts great numbers of theories, on philosophy, morals, and politics, without inquiry"(Tocqueville 11) These forms of media, newspapers, television and radio to name a few are filled with opinions and ideas that people just accept. Many of the leading media corporations are run by a handful of people. This means that the ideas and opinions that the masses are accepting are those ideas and opinions of a certain few people, a minority. The President of the United States is the single most powerful person in America. "A president can cause immeasurable harm (or good) purely on his own authority"(Alterman 12). Today is a very important time concerning the future of the Presidency and our country. The elections are coming up. The only two candidates who really have a chance of being our next President are Al Gore and George W. Bush. Both of these are wealthy, white, Christian family men. Political and economic power is in the hands of a few, like Gore and Bush. These candidates along with their corporate backers represent such a small number of people in our country that it cons...

Specific heat capacity is ethanol Essays

Specific heat capacity is ethanol Essays Specific heat capacity is ethanol Paper Specific heat capacity is ethanol Paper The three variables that affect the specific heat capacity of a substance are:   emperature change (K) or ( c) The equation that is used to determine the specific heat capacity of any substance is; Specific Heat Capacity = Energy Supplied ( Q) (C) Mass (kg) Temperature Change ( ) Unit: Jkg- K- Each different substance have different specific heat capacity, this is because different substances require different amount of energy to change the to increase or decrease the temperature. As all substances have different Internal Energy, this explains why different substances require different amount of energy to change the temperature. Studies from A2 explain that Internal Energy (Thermal Energy) is the sum of the kinetic energy and the potential energy of the molecules in an object or substance. If the temperature of a substance increases so does the internal energy. Referring back to knowledge gained from A1 when a substance is at a liquid state it has more internal energy than a substance at solid state. This can be explained by the fact that at solid state particles are bonded together so the particles movement is restricted. At liquid state the particles are spaced out s they are able to move randomly so they have more internal energy than particles in a solid, which have their movements restricted. As particles in solids are bonded together this means that heat can be conducted from one particle to another easily. Conduction transfers thermal energy through the collision of neighbouring particles. Liquids are poor thermal conductors because their particles are not bonded together which makes it had for heat to be transferred from one particle to the other. The way heat is transferred in liquids is through convection. Convection is the heat transfer due to the current movement from warmer particles moving towards the section where cooler particles are and cooler particles moving towards the warmer section of a fluid, this is caused by different densities at different temperature. This explains why liquids tend to have higher rates of specific heat capacity compared to solids because heat is transferred much quicker through conduction than convection. If you compare the specific heat capacity of copper, (390Jkg- K- ) to the specific heat capacity of water, (4180Jkg- K- ) there is a significant difference. In general the specific heat capacity of a solid is significantly lower compared to most liquids expect from Mercury which has a specific heat capacity of 140Jkg- K- when is in a liquid state. This also explains why H O has a low specific heat capacity when its in solid state, ice. (2100Jkg- K- ) compared to when its in liquid state, water (4180Jkg- K- ) From my research I found out that there are two laws of Thermodynamics: The first law states that the net heat transfer ( Q) of a systems equal to the sum of the thermal energy. The second law states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases. This means that heat cannot be 100% converted to useful energy because the heat released to entropy is never returned to the system. Entropy is like internal energy; it is a thermodynamic quantity that belongs to any system of objects. It is proportional to temperature. As the temperature increase, entropy increased. In a microscopic level, entropy measures the amount of disorder in a substance. When heat is added to the substance, the particles that make up the substance move faster in a random way. The greater the velocity of the particles this implies more disorder for the substance; therefore increasing its entropy. To work out how much energy is used Power and Time are required: This is the equation t work out Power: Power = Current   voltage. Thus to work out energy we use this equation: Energy = current   voltage time The substance that I will be trying to determine its Specific Heat Capacity is Ethanol. Ethanol, C2H5OH is the second member of the aliphatic alcohol series. Most of the ethanol used is a mixture of 5% water because pure ethanol known as absolute ethanol is too expensive. Ethanol is prepared by a 95% solution, which results from the fermentation of sugars. Ethanol used in industry is made by reaction of ethane and steam. C2H4 + H2O= C2H5OH Ethanols has a boiling point of 78. 3 degrees centigrade, which is lower than waters boiling point. PREDICTION.

Anne Frank Essays - Women In World War II, Stateless People

Anne Frank Audrey Strickland On June 12, 1929, at 7:30 A.M. a baby girl was born in Frankfurt, Germany. No one realized that this infant, who was Jewish, was destined to become one of the world?s most famous victims of World War II. Her name was Anne Frank, and her parents were Edith Frank Hollandar and Otto Frank. She had one sister, Margot, who was three years older than she was. Anne led a happy and normal childhood, and on her 13th birthday she received a diary from her parents. It became special to her as years went by. It is through this diary that much about World War II and Anne?s life has been learned. In 1933, her and her family left Frankfurt, a large Jewish community, and settled in Amsterdam. Her father foresaw that Hitler?s power boded disaster for the Jews. In May 1940, the Nazi invasion of the Netherlands took place, which cast a shadow on Anne?s happy childhood. The situation became worse with the restrictions placed on the Jews. One restriction was that Jewish children were only allowed at Jewish schools. Anne went to the Jewish school called The Jewish Lyceum. In July 1942, Anne?s family went into hiding in the Prinsengracht building. Anne?s family called it the ?Secret Annex?. During these times people they knew like, Miep and Jan Gies and many others, brought the family?s food. You would have to be very brave to take on a job like that because, if you got caught you could be killed. Life in the Annex was not easy at all. Anne had to wake up at 6:45 A.M. every morning. Nobody could go outside. No one could turn on lights at night. Anne mostly read books or wrote stories. Much of Anne?s diary was written while in hiding. Most of the families got separated, but Anne?s family never was. For this, they were lucky. In 1944, their hiding place was revealed, and they were taken into custody. The day after their arrest they were transferred to the Huis Van Bewaring, a prison on Weteringschans. On Aug. 8, they were transported from the main railroad station in Amsterdam to the Westerbork detention camp. For a month, the Franks were kept in the ?disciplinary barracks?, not as ordinary prisoners, but inmates convicted of a crime. The crime was hiding. On September 3, 1944, aboard the last transport to leave the Netherlands, Anne?s family and those who were with them, were brought to the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp. By then more than 100,000 Dutch Jews had been deported. This last transport held 498 men, 442 women, and 79 children a total of 1,019 people. This transport arrived in Aushwitz during the night of September 5. Right after they got there, men and women were separated. The following day, 549 people from this last transport, among them all the children less than 15 years of age, were sent to the gas chambers, where they would be killed. Women who had not been selected for extinction had to walk to the Birkenau women?s camp. Edith Frank and her daughters were among them. This camp was known as a ?death camp?. They had a goal to get rid of all the Jews and Gypsies. By September 1944, almost two million people had been gassed. After the arrival of the last transport from Westerbork, there were about 39,000 people in the women?s camp. Margot and Anne stayed there for almost two months. They were then to be shipped to Bergen-Belsen. Mrs. Frank didn?t want to leave her daughters, so she stayed with them until they were shipped away. On January 6, 1945, Edith Frank died in Aushwitz-Birkenau of grief and exhaustion. Anne and Margot were sent to Bergen-Belsen on October 28. Margot and Anne died within days of each other, of the disease typhus. Bergen-Belsen was liberated by the British shortly after, on April 15, 1945. Of the last transport, with 1,019 people, that left Westerbork on September 3, 1944 for Aushwitz, 45 men and 82 women survived. Anne?s father lived on for many years and made sure that Anne?s diary was published. Her diary was published in 1947 and was then made into a film. This diary helps people remember what the Jews went

Month Practicum Report Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Month Practicum Report - Assignment Example The transfer specialist’s responsibilities are to determine the eligibility and suitability of the applicant by using written administration policies and procedures, client interviews and document verification. Essentially, my job description is to conduct interviews of new and current applicants to determine their eligibility, and provide case management to nearly 600 Section 8 HCVP contract lease negotiations. What this entails is I help determine housing assistance payments, tenant rent calculations, and provide education and counseling for the applicants and the participants in the Section 8 HCVP. This allows for resolution of any concerns between the owner, tenant and the housing authority by interpreting and implementing the regulations and guidelines set forth by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). I am also responsible for updating tenant records using Yardi and SharePoint, doing criminal background checks, closing sales force tickets, completing bri efings and other duties as they are assigned to me. My department is divided into three teams, A, B and C, my team being A. team A serves MONTH PRACTICUM REPORT 2 new clients and current tenants in a many areas around Chicago, and in several different property types. The property types that my team and I help people with are called HCV-vash, which is for homeless veterans. The HUD program has allocated more than 10,000 vouchers to local public housing authorities countrywide to provide permanent supportive housing for homeless veterans. We also connect veterans with case managers to insure that they receive the health care and benefits assistance they need to help them move forward in their lives. The second housing type my team and I help with is Housing Choice Voucher Disaster Victim Program (HCVDVP), which is a disaster voucher program for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita victims. This program (formerly known as the Katrina Disaster Housing Assistance Program) allows victims of the Hu rricanes Katrina and Rita disaster areas to qualify for a special Disaster Voucher Program (DVP) for former public housing and Section 8 voucher holders. Unlike regular vouchers, there is no family contribution to the gross monthly rent. The DVP provides monthly housing assistance payments that are the lesser of the monthly gross rent, or the voucher payment standard. Monthly gross rent is the rent to the owner of the property, plus any utility allowance for tenant-provided utilities. A family may rent a unit with a gross rent greater than the payment standard, but the family must pay the difference even if it exceeds 40% of their income. If the rent to the property owner is less than the payment standard and the lease requires the family to pay utilities, the Public Housing Authority (PHA) will reimburse the family an amount equal to the difference between the housing assistance payment and the rent. MONTH PRACTICUM REPORT 3 In the last type of housing, it is called the Housing Cho ice Voucher Family Unification Program (HCVFUP). This program provides Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance to families whose lack of adequate housing is a primary cause of separation or imminent separation of a child or children from their families. The Family Unification Program (FUP) is provided to eligible families so that children will not be separated from their parents due to the lack of permanent,

The Treatment of Acute Exacerbation of COPD Research Paper - 1

The Treatment of Acute Exacerbation of COPD - Research Paper Example However, Sahn (2012) conducted research that showed the pre-hospital administration of hydrocortisone may improve. This could possibly be a result of evidence-based practice (EBP) and the purpose of this paper is to present the results of research into the topic.   EBP is relevant in practice mainly because it is informed by recently researched data that has been approved by professionals and the industry. According to Moyer (2008), managing acute exacerbation of COPD is a common practice that demands the critical search for evidence in the healthcare setting. In agreement with this opinion, Gregory and Mursell (2010) emphasize that medical practitioners should formulate relevant questions about the treatment of acute exacerbation of COPD. Based on this, this essay will search and answer the question â€Å"would the outcome of patients with acute exacerbation of COPD be improved by the pre-hospital administration of hydrocortisone in the UK?† Specifically applied to this question, the PICO model defines not only the problem but also the population at which the population is targeted. This was significant in the shaping of the literature search because it narrowed down the scope to a more defined area with specific expected outcomes. Yoder-Wise (2007) points out that it is critical in detailing the interventions and risk factors that must be considered by paramedics in their proc edure. This is as opposed to stereotyping the management of acute exacerbation of COPD to a particular long-used procedure (Goldacre, 2013).  Ã‚  

MGT WK5 ASSIGNENT Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

MGT WK5 ASSIGNENT - Essay Example He feels that nervousness, uncertainty, and surprises characterise new recruits. Good orientation will help in answering questions that employees may have, and offer the necessary bonding needed between the employees and the leaders of the company, (Cheng 39). An orientation programme may determine the length and quality of individuals’ professional stay in a company. Poor orientation leads to high turnover and increased industrial accidents. However, orientation is an on-going process where the person in question continues to build on the knowledge about the job and the company. Training on the other hand involves actual performance of the job, where an employee gets a chance to perform a task under supervision. Different methods used in training an employee depends on the company policies and the size of the company. Most supervisors vested with the role of training use on the job training. During training a supervisor should not only pinpoint the mistakes made by the employee but should also praise them for the little efforts they make. This way, employees on training will be motivated to do the job correctly. A training supervisor should be open-minded towards the trainees and should avoid any kind of misconceptions. OJT is a large retail company that has seven outlets in the city. The biggest problem is to train the sales clerks, who represent the company to the public. In addition, understanding of the computerised cash register, interaction with customers, and product knowledge are key areas that a supervisor must really work on. The table below shows a three-day orientation and training programme for sales clerks. On arrival to the company Monday morning, the sales clerks will be welcomed to the company by the human resource manager, who will have them sign their contracts. The human resource manager will go ahead and explain to the sales clerks their major role of carrying the company’s image