Servant Leadership Essay example -- Religion Faith Religious Vocation

Servant Leadership Vocation is our call to be the best that we can be, each of us in our own way, so that we may better ourselves and society. Servant leadership is the truest fulfillment of our responsibility to charity and social concern. Servant leadership provides a charismatic self-identification, and thus we can better define our lives and commit ourselves to a fruitful vocation. Christ came into the world as the King of all humanity. He came as the redeemer of our world. However, Jesus did not come into this world to be served, He came to serve. Although Christ is no longer with us, His mission and his legacy live on in us, the Church. We are called to be the Body of Christ by fostering the brotherhood of all men (Dulles 85). We are called to be Christ to one another and to act as the suffering servant. Dulles tells us that we too are called to serve, to heal, to reconcile, and to bind up wounds. We are called to bring about the Kingdom of God. In being Christ to all around us, Pope John Paul II tells us that â€Å"we must make the poor feel at home. Without this form of evangelization through charity and without the witness of Christian poverty, the proclamation of the Gospel, which itself is the prime form of charity, risks being misunderstood† (Wojtyla 4). Pope John Paul II tells us that we are to be Christ to all we meet, so that we may make all people feel dignified and wholly human. We must value the sacredness of each individual person so that we may transform this earth into the Kingdom of God. We are given a divine mission to reach out to all others in our lives, and if we do not serve others as Christ has served us, then we risk misinterpretation of the m... ...Models of the Church. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 2002. - New American Bible, The. Grand Rapids, MI: Catholic World Press. 1991. - Nouwen, Henri J.M. In the Name of Jesus. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1989. - Smith, Christian, and Jerry Z. Park. â€Å"’To Whom Much Has Been Given†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢: Religious Capital and Community Voluntarism Among Churchgoing Protestants.† Journal for Scientific Study of Religion. 39 (2000): 272-286. - Velander, Peter. "Reflections on Christian Leadership." Clergy Journal 78.8 (2002): 19-22. - Wojtyla, Karol (Pope John Paul II). â€Å"In All Things Charity: A Pastoral Challenge for the New Millenium.† Catholic International. 12.3 (2001): 10-17. ---. â€Å"Novo Milennio Ineunte: ‘Time for a New Creativity in Charity.’† Catholic International. 12.3 (2001): 3-10.

Kurt Vonnegut :: essays research papers

Kurt Vonnegut   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Kurt Vonnegut is an impressive author who combines comic fiction and social satire in his novels. He often writes about the main character Kilgore Trout, who seems to be more like Vonnegut’s alter ego. He has written many books including Player Piano, Cat’s Cradle, Slaughterhouse Five, Galapagos, Bluebeard, and Fates Worse Than Death.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Kurt Vonnegut was born November 11, 1922 in Indianapolis Indiana. His parents were Kurt Vonnegut Sr. and Edith Leiber. He graduated from Shortridge High School in Indianapolis where he was editor of the school newspaper. After graduation in 1940, he moved on to Cornell University in Ithaca, New York where he took classes for biochemistry. In 1942, he enlisted in the army as an Infantry Battalion Scout. Later he was trained by Carnegie Institute and University of Tennessee to become a mechanical engineer. In 1944, Kurt’s mother committed suicide on May 14. He returns home briefly, then was captured in the Battle of the Bulge. While working in a factory in Dresden, Germany, Vonnegut picked up his materials for Slaughterhouse Five. After this he married Jane Mary Cox on September 1, 1945. Working as a police reporter, he studied Anthropology at the University of Chicago, but his thesis was rejected. In 1947, his son Mark was born, later, in 1949 his daughter E dith. He then became a publicist for General Electric in Schenectady, New York, but in 1950 he quit GE, and moved to Cape Cod to write. He published Player Piano in 1952. His third child, Nanette was born in 1954. Between 1954 and 1956 he taught English at Hopefield school, worked for an ad agency, and opened the very first Saab dealership in the great United States. Next, Kurt was rocked with a number of close deaths. His father passed away in 1957 on October 1, his sister and his brother-in-law die in 1958. He then adopted his three oldest nieces and nephews. Kurt still found time to write and Cat’s Cradle was published in 1962. From 1965 to 1967, he took up a residency at University of Iowa Writer’s Workshop and published Pearls Before Swine. Vonnegut wanted a closer look in Dresden before he wrote the novel Slaughterhouse Five, to he went back to Dresden on a Guggenheim Fellowship. He finished the novel in 1969. His education was furthered after he taught creative writing at Harvard and received his master’s degree from University of Chicago for Cat’s Cradle.

SARS Essay examples -- Essays Papers

SARS Life History Severe Acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a respiratory illness that had recently been reported in Asia, North America, and Europe. SARS was first reported is Asia in February of 2003, over the next few months it spread to more than a dozen countries. By late July 2003, no new cases were being reported and the global outbreak was declared over by the World Health Organization. During this time period 8,098 people worldwide became infected with SARS and out of these 774 died. In the United States a total of 192 SARS cases had been reported, including 159 suspect and 33 probable cases. Of the probable only 8 had laboratory evidence of SARS-CoV infection. Luckily, no SARS relate deaths occurred in the US. Microbial Characteristics SARS belongs to a family of viruses called the coronaviruses. These viruses are recognized by their halo or crown like appearance when viewed under a microscope. The difference between SARS and other Caronaviruses deals with with their protein makeup. In early April of 2003 researchers from the Michael Smith Genome Science Cent...

Theories of Corporate Personality

Theories of Corporate Personality MANAS AGARWAL 5th Semester BA LL. B (B) School of Law Christ University Bangalore INDEX * Research Methodology * Introduction * The Common Law Perspectives * Fiction Theory * Concession Theory * The Purpose Theory * Bracket Theory * Realist Theory * Why Corporations? * Corporate Personality And Limited Liability Cases: * Macaura v. Northern Assurance Co. * Lee v. Lee’s Air Farming * Salomon v. Salomon & Co. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I Manas Agarwal of B. A. LL. B (Hons. ) is really grateful to Ms. Fincy V, without whose help and corporation this project would not have been possible.I am also grateful to the National Law School India University (N. L. S. I. U) Library staff and the Knowledge Centre, Christ University staff, whose cooperation is appreciable. I think this kind of assignments lead to the overall development of the students and I am looking forward to take up such assignments in future. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY †¢ SCOPE AND FOCUS: – This research paper essentially seeks to study and criticise the different theories of corporate personality considering the jurisprudential conflicts. †¢ RESEARCH OBJECTIVES: – The principal objective of our research is to study and criticise the different theories of corporate personality and the concepts under it. * Another objective of our research is to find conflicts between the various theories relying on various judgments. †¢ RESEARCH QUESTIONS: – * What is the difference between various theories of corporate personalities. * The meaning and limits of a corporate personality. †¢ METHOD OF ANALYSIS: – This project has its basis on the following methods of analysis:- DESCRIPTIVE: – The first task is to comprehensively study and critize the jurisprudential theories of corporate personalities.ANALYTICAL: – Further these concepts and observations can be analyzed. The valuable knowledge that is gained from studying the commentaries must be used to understand the evolution of the theories and the law itself in terms of some cases. †¢ MODE OF CITATION :- The researcher(s) has used a uniform mode of citation in this paper. Introduction There is an interesting conflict between philosophic theories as to the nature of corporate personality and the insurgent demand of economic forces for a further recognition of those form of organisation which seem so essential to modern life.The grant of legal personality is clearly within the gift of the state, for it may be refused to natural persons. In the case of natural person, however, it is clear that law grants legal personality to a physical entity existing in space and possessing what (for lack of better term) we describe as human personality. While philosophy may find difficulty in analyzing or describing the real nature of human personality, few of us doubt that we exist, and we compensate for our defective analysis by an intuitive understanding of our own natur e which, however inadequate it may be, at least gives a substratum on which to build.As far as legal personality is concerned, there is no very significant difference between that granted to human beings and that to non-human beings such as groups or other entity. The decision of House of Lords in Salomon v A Salomon & Co. Ltd had a lasting influence in corporation law. It is often credited with the principle of separate legal entity of the corporation distinct from the members. Though there is no doubt that the Salomon case had play a significant role in company law, the decision in this case was hardly the origin of the separate legal entity principle.The legal entity of beings other than the human has long been recognized prior to 1897, in which the Salomon case was decided. The jurisprudence theories on juristic person had been established since the early Roman law to justify the existence of legal person other than the human. The State, religious bodies and education institutio ns had long been recognized as having legal entity distinct from the members. The acceptance of the corporate personality of a company basically means that another non-human entity is recognized to assume a legal entity. This can be seen from the many theories of jurisprudence on corporate personality.Majority of the principal jurisprudence theories on corporate personality contended that the legal entity of the corporation is artificial. The fiction, concession, symbolist and purpose theories supported the contention that existence of corporation as a legal person is not real. It only exists because the law of the state recognized it as legal person and it is recognized either for certain purpose or objectives. The fiction theory, for example, clearly stated that the existence of corporation as a legal person is purely fiction and that the rights attached to it totally depend on how much the law imputes upon it by fiction.The Common Law Perspectives Generally, there are two types o f person which the law recognized, namely the natural and artificial person. The former is confined merely for human beings while the latter is generally referred to any being other than human being which the law recognized as having duties and rights . One of the most recognized artificial persons is the corporation. Legal scholars, particularly the jurists, have always explored the issue on the recognition of corporation as a legal person.In the study of jurisprudence, the separate legal personality of corporation is based upon theories, which are concentrated upon the philosophical explanation of the existence of personality in beings other than human individuals. W. Friedman stated that: â€Å"All law exists for the sake of liberty inherent in each individual; therefore the original concept of personality must coincide with the idea of man. † Even though there are many theories which attempted to explain the nature of corporate personality, none of them is said to be domi nant.It is claimed that while each theory contains elements of truth, none can by itself sufficiently interpret the phenomenon of juristic person. Nonetheless, there are five principal theories, which are used to explain corporate personality, namely, the fiction theory, realist theory, the purpose theory, the bracket theory and the concession theory. Fiction Theory The fiction theory holds that corporations are simply legal fictions, created and sustained by an act of the state. They are endowed with corporate personality simply because this is a convenient form through which the natural persons behind the corporation may conduct their business.According to this theory, the legal personality of entities other than human beings is the result of a fiction. Hence, not being a human being, corporation cannot be a real person and cannot have any personality on its own. Originally, the outward form that corporate bodies are fictitious personality was directed at ecclesiastic bodies. The doctrine was used to explain that the ecclesiastic colleges or universities could not be excommunicated or be guilty of a delict as they have neither a body nor a will. The famous case of Salomon v A Salomon Co Ltd is a proof of the English court adoption of the fiction theory.In this case, Lord Halsbury stated that the important question to decide was whether in truth an artificial creation of the legislature had been validly constituted. It was held that as the company had fulfilled requirements of the Companies Act, the company becomes a person at law, independent and distinct from its members. Despite its instrumental conception of the corporation, the fiction theory still affords a sufficient basis for according corporations legal rights. Indeed, it is on the basis of the fiction that corporations are persons that they possess the legal rights they do, such as private property rights.However the fiction theory affords no basis for the recognition of moral rights of corporations . On the fiction view, â€Å"corporations, as creatures of the State, have only those rights granted them by the State. † The personality the corporation enjoys is not inherent in it but as conceded by the state. Due to the close connection made in this theory as regards to relation of legal personality and the power of the state, fiction theory was claimed to be similar to the theory of sovereignty of state which is also known as the concession theory. Concession TheoryA group of persons wanting to create a corporation will have to execute documents and comply with requirements set by the state before being given corporate personality; merely a privilege; state may provide causes for which the privilege may be withdrawn. It maintains that the law is the only source from which the legal personality may flow. The law lays down certain conditions which creates the legal personality of a corporation. Corporate form is therefore a concession given by the state. The concession the ory is basically linked with the philosophy of the sovereign national state.It is said to be essentially a product of the rise of the national state at a time when there were rivals between religious congregations and organizations of feudal origin for the claim of national state to complete sovereignty. Under the concession theory, the state is considered to be in the same level as the human being and as such, it can confer on or withdraw legal personality from other groups and associations within its jurisdictions as an attribute of its sovereignty. Hence, a juristic person is merely a concession or creation of the state.Concession theory is often regarded as the offspring of the fiction theory as it has similar claim that the corporations within the state have no legal personality except as it is conceded by the state. Exponents of the fiction theory, for example, Savigny, Dicey and Salmond are found to support this theory. Nonetheless, it is that while the fiction theory is ulti mately a philosophical theory that a corporation is merely a name and a thing of the intellect, the concession theory is indifferent as regards to the question of the reality of a corporation in that it focuses on the sources of which the legal power is derived.Dicey took the view that sovereignty is merely a legal conception which indicates the law-making power unrestricted by any legal limits. The Purpose Theory This theory is also known as the theory of Zweckvermogen. Similar to the fiction and concession theories, it declares that only human beings can be a person and have rights. Entities other human is regarded as an artificial person and merely function as a legal device for protecting or giving effect to some real purpose. As corporations are not human, they can merely be regarded as juristic or artificial person.Under this theory, juristic person is no person at all but merely as a â€Å"subject less† property destined for a particular purpose and that there is owner ship but no owner. The juristic person is not constructed round a group of person but based on the object and purpose. The property of the juristic person does not belong to anybody but it may be dedicated and legally bound by certain objects. This theory rationalized the existence of many charitable corporations or organizations, such as trade unions, which have been recognized as legal persons for certain purposes and have continuing fund.It is also closely linked with the legal system which regard the institution of public law and the endowment of private law as legal personalities. Bracket Theory According this theory, a company consisting of its members or shareholders exists and it is inconvenient to refer always to all of them, a bracket is placed around them to which a name is given but in order to understand the real position we must remove the bracket. The real status is given in realist theory. Realist Theory On the realist view, the corporation is more than a legal ficti on, and more than simply an agreement between its shareholders.It is an autonomous institution with a demonstrable extra-legal existence, analogous in some respects to a self-governing state. Like the contract theory, the realist theory recognises that the shareholders of a corporation delegate the powers of control over their property to the corporation's management so that the property can be pooled towards a unified purpose. Unlike under the contract theory, however, the shareholders are seen more as investors in the corporation than owners of it.This is why managers owe fiduciary duties not simply to the shareholders, but to the corporate person as a whole. Of the three theories, only the realist theory seems capable in principle of supporting moral rights for corporations, because only it grants them a real social existence apart from the concession of the state or the agreement of their shareholders. However it seems that the realist theory of corporate personality has fallen out of favour amongst modern academic writers. This may be because it seems to accurately describe only a limited subset of corporations.Many types of corporations which have assumed greater importance since the realist view gained prominence, including holding companies and trustee companies, sit uneasily within the realist framework. Nevertheless it is believed that the realist theory is potentially the most useful of the three set out above, so long as the subset of corporations to which it most accurately applies can be sufficiently delineated. By itself the theory seems incapable of providing any basis for such delineation. If the realist conception of the corporation is to be salvaged at all, its assumptions must be explicated by some other theory.Why Corporations? The above survey of the theories of corporate personality has revealed no complete conception of the corporation which justifies the recognition of moral rights of corporate persons. To some extent, this is hardly s urprising. Corporate personality is a legal concept based on purely commercial considerations: The concept of the juridical person is convenient to the conduct of business by providing for extended â€Å"life† and a limitation on liability, not to mention the right to own property and enter into contracts, which the law reserves to people.But laws might be fashioned to give corporations the same power to own property and sign valid contracts without terming them persons. There is therefore no reason why the types of bodies (if any) which deserve to be endowed with collective rights should coincide with those organisations allotted the status of persons by the law for purely instrumental reasons. For instance, corporations are classified as legal persons, but partnerships are not. Yet there is no obvious reason why the mere act of incorporation by a partnership should endow it with moral rights which it did not possess before.The intuition which many lawyers seem to possess th at corporations do possess rights can be explained as a psychological response to the â€Å"unified normative vocabulary† with which natural and corporate persons are described. That is, the personification of the corporation leads lawyers to indiscriminately apply concepts to it which are rightly applicable only to natural persons. However although this may be a convenient mode of analysis, it is clearly not conceptually consistent for rights to be accorded to bodies corporate (and to no other collectivities) purely because they bear that designation.Nevertheless, that is precisely what propose should be done. The rationale is that the present paper is not simply a normative, but also a descriptive study. It is apparent that corporate persons are already recognised as more appropriate bearers of rights than non-incorporated bodies under Australian law. It is for this reason that they have property and other common law rights which non-incorporated bodies lack. It is likely, therefore, that any extension of the rights recognised of collectivities under our law will employ this existing category.To extend the recognition of rights to non-incorporated bodies would require the recognition of a third type of personhood hitherto unknown to the law. However desirable this may be, it is not a realistic proposal for law reform. Corporate Personality And Limited Liability Corporate personality refers to the fact that as far as the law is concerned a company personality really exists apart and different from its owners. As a result of this, a company can sue and be sued in its own name, hold its own property and crucially – be liable for its own debts.It is this concept that enables limited liability for shareholders to occur as the debts belong to the legal entity of the company and not to the shareholders in that company. Corporate legal personality arose from the activities of organisations such as religious orders and local authorities which were grant ed rights by the government to hold property and sue and be sued in their own right and not to have to rely on the rights of the members behind the organisation. Over time the concept began to be applied to commercial ventures with a public interest element such as rail building ventures and colonial trading businesses.However, modern company law only began in the mid-nineteenth century when a series of Companies Acts were passed which allowed ordinary individuals to form registered companies with limited liability. The way in which corporate personality and limited liability link together is best expressed by examining the key cases:- Salomon v Salomon ; Co. Mr Salomon carried on a business as a leather merchant. In 1892 he formed the company Salomon ; Co. Ltd. Mr Salomon, his wife and five of his children held one share each in the company.The members of the family held the shares for Mr Salomon because the Companies Acts required at that time that there be seven shareholders. Mr Salomon was also the Managing Director of the company. The newly incorporated company purchased the soletrading leather business. The leather business was valued by MrSalomon at ? 39,000. This was not an attempt at a fair valuation; rather it represented Mr Salomon’s confidence in the continued success of the business. The price was paid in ? 0,000 worth of debentures (a debenture is a written acknowledgement of debt like a mortgage – see Chapter 7) giving a charge over all the company’s assets (this means the debt is secured over the company’s assets and Mr Salomon could, if he is not repaid his debt, take the company’s assets and sell them to get his money back), plus ? 20,000 in ? 1 shares and ? 9,000 cash. Mr Salomon also at this point paid off all the sole trading business creditors in full. Mr Salomon thus held 20,001 shares in the company, with his family holding the six remaining shares. He was also, because of the debenture, a secured cred itor.However, things did not go well for the leather business and within a year Mr Salomon had to sell his debenture to save the business. This did not have the desired effect and the company was placed in insolvent liquidation (i. e. it had too little money to pay its debts) and a liquidator was appointed (a court appointed official who sells off the remaining assets and distributes the proceeds to those who are owed money by the company, see Chapter 16). The liquidator alleged that the company was but a sham and a mere ‘alias’ or agent for Mr Salomon and that Mr Salomon was therefore personally liable for the debts of the company.The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the shareholders had to be a bona fide association who intended to go into business and not just hold shares to comply with the Companies Acts. The House of Lords disagreed and found that- the fact that some of the shareholders are only holding shares as a technicality was irrelevant; the registration procedure could be used by an individual to carry on what was in effect aone-man business a company formed in compliance with the regulations of the Companies Acts is a separate person and not the agent or trustee of its controller.As a result, the debts of the company were its own and not those of the members. The members’ liability was limited to the amount prescribed in the Companies Act – i. e. the amount they invested. The decision also confirmed that the use of debentures instead of shares can further protect investors. Macaura v Northern Assurance Co. Mr Macaura owned an estate and some timber. He agreed to sell all the timber on the estate in return for the entire issued share capital of Irish Canadian Saw Mills Ltd.The timber, which amounted to almost the entire assets of the company, wasthen stored on the estate. On 6 February 1922 Mr Macaura insured the timber in his own name. Two weeks later a fire destroyed allthe timber on the estate. Mr Macaura tried to claim under theinsurance policy. The insurance company refused to pay outarguing that he had no insurable interest in the timber as the timber belonged to the company. Allegations of fraud were also made against Mr Macaura but never proven. Eventually in 1925 theissue arrived before the House of Lords who found that:The timber belonged to the company and not Mr Macaura Mr Macaura, even though he owned all the shares in the company, had no insurable interest in the property of the company just as corporate personality facilitates limited liability by having the debts belong to the corporation and not the members, it also means that the company’s assets belong to it and not to the shareholders. More modern examples of the Salomon principle and the Macaura problem can be seen in cases such as Barings Plc (In Liquidation) v Coopers ; Lybrand (No. 4) [2002] 2 BCLC 364.In that case a loss suffered by a parent company as a result of a loss at its subsidiary (a company in which it he ld all the shares) was not actionable by the parent – the subsidiary was the proper plaintiff. In essence you can’t have it both ways – limited liability has huge advantages for shareholders but it also means that the company is a separate legal entity with its own property, rights and obligations. Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Mr Lee incorporated a company, Lee’s Air Farming Limited, in August 1954 in which he owned all the shares. Mr Lee was also the sole ‘Governing Director’ for life.Thus, as with Mr Salomon, he was in essence a sole trader who now operated through a corporation. Mr Lee was also employed as chief pilot of the company. In March 1956, while Mr Lee was working, the company plane he was flying stalled and crashed. Mr Lee was killed in the crash leaving a widow and four infant children. The company as part of its statutory obligations had been paying an insurance policy to cover claims brought under the Workers’ Compens ation Act. The widow claimed she was entitled to compensation under the Act as the widow of a ‘worker’.The issue went first to the New Zealand Court of Appeal who found that he was not a ‘worker’ within the meaning of the Act and so no compensation was payable. The case was appealed to the Privy Council in London. They found that: the company and Mr Lee were distinct legal entities and therefore capable of entering into legal relations with one another as such they had entered into a contractual relationship for him to be employed as the chief pilot of the company he could in his role of Governing Director give himself order as chief pilot.It was therefore a master and servant relationship and as such he fitted the definition of ‘worker’ under the Act. The widow was therefore entitled to compensation. Separate legal personality and limited liability are not the same thing. Limited liability is the logical consequence of the existence of a separ ate personality. The legal existence of a company (corporation) means it can be responsible for its own debts. The shareholders will lose their initial investment in the company but they will not be responsible for the debts of the company.Just as humans can have restrictions imposed on their legal personality (as in the case of children) a company can have legal personality without limited liability if that is how it is conferred by the statute. CONCLUSION person is not artificial or fictitious but real and natural. The realist also contended that the From the discussion on jurisprudence theories of corporate personality by G. W Paton, it is observed that main arguments lie between the fiction and realist theories.The fiction theory claimed that the entity of corporation as a legal person is merely fictitious and only exist with the intendment of the law. On the other hand, from the realist point of view, the entity of the corporation as a legal law merely has the power to recogniz e a legal entity or refuse to recognize it but the law has no power to create an entity. Referring to the English company law case law, it can be seen that in most cases, the court adopted the fiction theory. Salomon v A Salomon Co Ltd is the most obvious example.It is also observed that fiction theory provide the most acceptable reasoning in justifying the circumstances whereby court lifted the corporate veil of corporation. If the entity of the corporation is real, then the court would not have the right to decide the circumstances where there is separate legal entity of the corporation should be set aside. No human being has the right to decide circumstances whereby the entity of another human being should be set aside. Only law has such privilege.Nonetheless, the realist contention that the corporation obtain its entity as a legal person not because the law granted it to them but because it is generated through its day to day transaction which are later accepted and recognized b y law also seem acceptable. Bibliography * A Text Book of Jurisprudence, 2nd Ed, by G. W. Paton * Corporate personality in the 20th century edited by Ross Grantham * Manupatra. com * Legalservicesindia. com * Westlaw. com ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Cf. A. Kocourek, Jural Relations (2nd ed. ), 57. [ 2 ]. Stokes, M. â€Å"Company Law and Legal Theory† in Twining, W. ed). Legal Theory and the Common Law. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1986, 155, 162. [ 3 ]. Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 [ 4 ]. First National Bank v Bellotti (1978) 435 US 765 [ 5 ]. Mark, G. Op. cit. 1472. [ 6 ]. cf. Mills v Mills (1938) 60 CLR 150 [ 7 ]. Woytash, J. â€Å"We Must Stop Viewing Corporations as People† (1978) 64 ABAJ 814 [ 8 ]. Dan-Cohen, M. Rights, Persons, and Organizations. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1986, 5. [ 9 ]. Salomon v Salomon & Co. [1897] AC 22 [ 10 ]. Macaura v Northern Assurance Co. [1925] AC 619 [ 11 ]. Lee v Lee’s Air Farming [1961] AC 12

The Animal Kingdom Animals

In the animal kingdom there are so many different types of species. Every animal in the animal kingdom are a part of the animalia kingdom. Some of the different species that can be found in the animalia kingdom are insects, birds, echinoderms, and mammal. Out of all these different species that belong to the animalia kingdom they all have many traits and adaptations that are either very similar or very different that the other. Mammals-There are as many as 5000 mammal species in the animal kingdom.Some very important details to know about mammals is that they have some unique qualities and characteristics that differ from other animals in the animal kingdom such as their hair and fur and the fact that mammals birth full babies rather than eggs and the produce milk to feed their offspring. An example of two mammals is deer and cheetahs. Cheetah-There is a rough estimate that there is about 100,000 cheetahs out there. The cheetah is a mammal that can be found in a savannah of in a mild ly open area.The mother land to the cheetah is Africa, but these days they can be found all across the eastern parts such as Iran. There was a time the there was a cheetah were located in more today. The cheetah is a carnivore, meaning they are meant eaters. They main prey that the cheetah hunts is gazelles, wildebeest calves, impalas and smaller hoofed animals. Talking prey, the cheetah does not just hunt prey, but are prey themselves against animal like the lions and hyenas, as well as failing victim to poachers and hunters. A fey factor and strength of the cheetah is its speed, a cheetah can reach ranges up to 70 mph.Whitetail deer- This mammal lives in habitats that have deep woods and grassy brush areas. They are best found in southern Canada and all over the United States. The white tailed deer is said to one of the smallest members in the deer family in North America. They are located in many different parts that range in area from Central America to Bolivia. Some interesting traits that the Whitetail deer has are their scent glands on all four feet, metatarsal glands on all their hind legs, and the tarsal gland on their hind legs.The male deer known as the buck has big long antlers that are pointy and sharp. These are used in mating season for territory and fighting matches. The Female deer known as does. The white tailed deer is a part of the order Artiodactyls family. The white tailed deer are herbivores and eat mostly leaves, twigs, fruits and nuts, grass, corn, alfalfa, and even lichens and other fungi. Both the Cheetah and the deer are both four legged mammals and they both have fur short fur coat. The white tailed deer is herbivores were as the cheetah is a carnivore.Some traits that the impala and white tailed deer have in common are they both have scent glands and the males have horns, females do not. The different characteristics would be that the male white tail sheds its horns. Insects-Mountain pine beetle-The mountain pine beetle is an inse ct that reside in areas like the forests of western North America. The mountain pine beetle is said to be mainly located in the Colorado pine forest. The beetle lives on and eats through wood, and lumber that is found in the forest.Honey Bees- If there is one insect that is most common to everyone, it is the honey bee. The honey bee belongs to the hymenoptera family and is a huge recourse to humans and the natural world we live in. Bees refine and concentrate nectar to produce honey. Bees are known as social insects and live in hives. Each bee hive can contain anywhere from 20,000 to 80,000 bees. The bees work together in strong structured social order, giving them the name, the social insect. These social groups are referred to as castes. There are three castes which are the queens, drones, and workers.Another very important role that bees play is pollination. As pollen sticks to the bee it rubs off as it makes it way from flower to flower know as pollination. Although the beetle a nd the honey bee are two separate insects they have many characteristics in common. Both the beetle and the honey bee have wing and can fly, and most all honey bees as well as beetles are similar in size, shape and color. Although they are similar in many ways they are also very different. The roles these two insects play in our natural would could not be more different.Birds- Some characteristics that most all birds share is there feathers, ability to fly, they have no teeth, have two limbs and lay eggs. Adelie penguins- A penguin is a very unique kind of bird in the bird family. Penguins live in colonies. The Adelie penguin can be found primarily in Antarctica in the cold ice oceans or along the freezing shores. An Adelie penguin’s diet consists of shrimp-like krill, fish and squid. They get they prey by diving below the surface of the waters. A Adelie penguin can dive as far as 575 feet (175 meters) to hunt for its prey.The Adelie penguin nest on land and are also very goo d swimmers. Andean condors- another very unique bird is the Andean condors. The Andean condor is a very large bird with a Body of, 4 ft (1. 2 m); wingspan, up to 10. 5 ft. It is one of the world’s largest birds that have the ability to fly. They weigh about 33lbs and has the largest wingspan of any other bird in the world. The Andean condor is known to hibernate near oceans, mountains and near deserts. They feed on carcasses of large wild or domestic animals. These birds are considered to be a very endangered species.

Bestbuy’s Strategy Essay

According to the case, BestBuy is trying to create a competitive advantage in three areas: customer-centricity, employment policies, and exclusive branding. After studying the VRIO framework, I have found that BestBuy’s three areas of strategy do fit into the VRIO framework. BestBuy believes that an effective strategy is a commitment to customer-centricity. A business that implements customer-centricity caters to specific customer needs and behaviors. According to the book, BestBuy wants to steer away from a product-centered marketing approach to a more customer-oriented marketing approach which will have them asking what problems its customers are facing, and then providing solutions. Furthermore, BestBuy wants to segment its customers into four different profiles: Upscale Suburban, Urban Trendsetter, Empty Nesters, and Middle America. In different regions around the U. S. you will find these diverse groups. BestBuy has been able to utilize the rare attribute of the VRIO framework with its ability to serve the needs of the predominant customer segment in a given region. BestBuy is unlike any company in the consumer electronic industry because as the book mentions, â€Å"Nearly all companies claim to be customer oriented, but being customer centric required a radical reorganization and shift in employee mindset. † BestBuy has reformatted the physical space in its stores and related products have been bundled together to meet the needs of certain segments. Store teams have also been trying to answer the following questions: What kind of traffic do we have coming in our stores today, how effectively are we selling to the people in the stores, what does our customer information look like, what segments do we have coming in, and what kind of market share do we have for those segments? To answer those questions BestBuy has been investing in the right tools so that the field knows what to focus on. BestBuy has taken customer interest a step further, and so far it has given them a rare advantage. BestBuy has also done a good job of organizing its employment policies to capture value. According to the book, BestBuy has set up an employee listening program that uses open communication to better understand the needs of its workers. This program has done a great job of exploiting the company’s capabilities because it is implementing tools such as annual company-wide surveys, a virtual discussion board, and one-on-one dialogue sessions. BestBuy is capturing value because they are listening to their employees and discerning information that was previously unknown to management. The final area that BestBuy is focusing its strategy on is exclusive brands. This last area is very important to BestBuy because it is valuable, rare, and costly to imitate. BestBuy currently owns these private labels: Insignia, Dynex, Init, Rocketfish, and Geek Squad. As far as background goes, Insignia produces TVs, monitors, home-theater systems, and portable video/ audio players. Dynex produces storage media, data and power cables, webcams, and office supplies. Init produces media storage, equipment bags, totes and furniture for home theaters. Rocketfish is a top notch producer of cables that are mostly used for TVs. And most famously, Geek Squad provides computer repair and installation services. BestBuy realizes that they cannot solely rely on these small private labels to create, on their own, enough revenue to stay in business. But nevertheless, these private labels are valuable because they add attractive features to the company. Most of the products offered by these small labels are accessories that add value to the more expensive products which in turn increase the profitability of BestBuy. In particular, I think Geek Squad is valuable because a lot of older people do not know how to set up the more complex electronics and often run into problems. Easy-to-setup installation and troubleshooting is a very attractive feature to most consumers. Along those same lines, these small labels are rare because their products are only being sold in BestBuy stores. If you’re a huge fan of Rocketfish cables or really appreciate the helpfulness of Geek Squad then you have to come to BestBuy to get you want. These private labels are also costly to imitate I imagine because it could be costly to implement and staff a repair and installation service in all of your stores like BestBuy has done with Geek Squad. Also, these private labels have a few unique products that could be hard to replicate. I know that Init has created some nice, high quality equipment bags and furniture for home theaters. I believe that after weighing the benefits of all three of these areas that BestBuy has indeed created a competitive advantage. In one way or another they have valuable, rare, costly to imitate, or are organized to capture value with their products and services. BestBuy’s business level strategy is to focus on its people through customer centricity and employment policies. The managers in both areas want to listen to the people and discern how to best appeal to them. Managers have planned to become customer centric by profiling its customers and then design the stores and provide products according to the profiles in the region. The cost driver associated is the cost of input factors because it requires a radical reorganization and shift in employee mindset. Stores need to be reformatted and related products need to be bundled. The main value driver for this focus has been customer service. BestBuy has excelled at customer service because they are able to identify customer needs and appeal to their wants because of the unique profiles that have been created. The main cost driver for employment policies has also been cost of input factors because I imagine it has been costly to implement the new annual company-wide surveys, a virtual discussion board, and one-on-one dialogue sessions. The main value driver for the employment policies is customer service. BestBuy has created distinctive techniques for company-wide communication that in turn provide better customer support. Managers now know what the consumers are thinking because the employees are able to share information with their superiors in an efficient way. The competition between BestBuy, Amazon, Apple, and Wal-Mart has been fierce over the last several years. BestBuy has found itself to still be at the top of consumer electronics in the minds of its customers with 40% of the votes. However, BestBuy comes in 11th place in the Top 15 most valuable retail brands. Furthermore, Apple has recently made a large push in the race by reaching $2. 8 billion in sales in 2010 which puts them in third place behind BestBuy and Amazon. However, BestBuy is in last place according to share performance in 2010 and 2011. After looking at all of the different results and surveys I would say that BestBuy is right in the thick of things and battling for the top spot. Amazon may be more a valuable company but the consumers still view BestBuy as the leading consumer electronic company. One of the critical problems facing BestBuy is people coming into the store and testing the products and then leaving and buying the product elsewhere. I think that BestBuy’s strategy to become customer centered is a good strategy. Many of the same products are sold by multiple companies, but if BestBuy can appeal to the segments and profiles of people coming into their stores then they can get people to buy the products in their stores. Identifying the profiles of people coming in is the first step and then being able to bundle products and arrange displays in an appealing way is a good strategy. If BestBuy continues to value its consumers I think they will find a way to sustain a competitive. After all, people want to feel important and be given what they need and desire.

Property According to Karl Marx and John Locke Essay

â€Å"Property, any object or right that can be owned. Ownership involves, first and foremost, possession; in simple societies to possess something is to own it† ( Funk & Wagnall’s. 1994). English philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704) believed that the only reason society degenerates to armed conflict and strife is because of a depletion of the essential ingredients of an individual or a community’s self-preservation. Those ingredients, according to the Second Treatise include: the right to private property which is grounded in the exercise of the virtues of rationality and industry; the powers of government must be separated because virtue is always in short supply, but prerogative, which depends on virtue in judgment, must be retained by the executive because of the necessary imperfections of the rule of law; and, the right of resistance to illegitimate government presupposes the exercise of restraint and rational judgment by the people (Locke, 29-34). For Locke, labor’s most valuable function is that it does more than simply define a division between what is private and what is public. He believes that it is labor that creates value and turns something that was fundamentally worthless into something of worth. For example, Locke presents the opinion that land without labor put into it is â€Å"scarcely worth anything. † He also notes that, â€Å"nature and the earth furnished only the almost worthless materials as in themselves. † It is labor, and thus the laborer â€Å"that puts the difference of value on everything. † Locke answers the question of whether or not a person has a right to acquire as much as he wants. The answer is a simple â€Å"no;† â€Å"As much as anyone can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labor fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. † For example, he commented that â€Å"it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use (51). Government, Locke believed, is a trust of the individual. The purpose of that trust is the security of the individual’s person and property, and, perhaps most importantly, that individual has the right to withdraw his or her confidence in the ruling government when the government fails in its task. Many of Locke’s political ideas, such as those relating to natural rights, property rights, the duty of the government to protect these rights, and the rule of the majority, were later embodied in the U. S. Constitution. For his time, Locke’s vision of labor as the â€Å"value added† to what is naturally occurring was relatively appropriate. In the 17th century, nothing of â€Å"value† existed without the input of labor. However, as civilization advanced and became more complex, so did issues of value, worth, and compensation. It is difficult to make the necessary translation of his economic philosophy to modern language and meaning. His views on government, though have lasted centuries, remain appropriate and applicable to this day. In significant contrast, the German-born revolutionary, economist, and â€Å"founding father† of communism, Karl Marx (1818-1883) believed private property in capital goods contravened the nature of the human person. He based his rejection of such property upon his understanding of the natural law. This research paper was sold by The Paper Store, Inc. of Jackson, New Jersey. Nor could Marx accept a system in which property was held by every individual, because the human person does not possess the â€Å"spiritual† strength to overcome greed; for Marx that could only come by reorganizing the model of production. Marx’s ultimate goal was to liberate the world from the evil of acquisitive materialism and lead the human race to a new freedom (Peterson 337). In the â€Å"Third Manuscript – Private Property and Labor† by Marx, written during the summer of 1844, he states: â€Å"The subjective essence of private property, private property as activity for itself, as subject, as person, is labor. It, therefore, goes without saying that only that political economy which recognized labor as its principle and which therefore no longer regarded private property as nothing more than a condition external to man, can be regarded as both a product of the real energy and movement of private property (it is the independent movement of private property become conscious of itself, it is modern industry as self), a product of modern industry, and a factor which has accelerated and glorified the energy and development of this industry and transformed it into a power belonging to consciousness† (Marx PG). He further condemns the private ownership of property and the government that supports such a system by saying: â€Å" . . . the supporters of the monetary and mercantile system, who look upon private property as a purely objective being for man, appear as fetish-worshippers, as Catholics, to this enlightened political economy, which has revealed — within the system of private property — the subjective essence of wealth† (Marx PG) He reaches what he considers a â€Å"logical† conclusion: â€Å"for man himself no longer stands in a relation of external tension to the external essence of private property — he himself has become the tense essence of private property. What was formerly being-external-to-oneself, man’s material externalization, has now become the act of alienation. † Marx described true communism, which is the â€Å"restoration of man as a social, that is human being. † Not only are the relations between human beings restored; so is the proper relation between the human being and nature. Communism is naturalism, which banishes alien spiritual beings from existence, and therefore humanism as well. The human being once again finds itself at home in the natural world, as that from which it came, and as the arena of its creativity. Marx viewed communism as the negation of the negation (private property being the negation of human nature). Interestingly, he did not declare it as final. â€Å"Communism is the necessary form and dynamic principle of the immediate future but not as such the goal of human development — the goal of human society. † â€Å"Communism is ultimately the positive expression of private property as overcome,† said Marx from his controversial days as newspaper writer to his death at age 65. It is a painful irony that the system that evolved into modern communism became the true â€Å"negation of human nature. † In its efforts to maintain the collective the individual was lost. Individual human spirit cannot (apparently) remain lost, hidden, or locked away indefinitely. The past twenty years have demonstrated how tentative the hold of communism actually was/is throughout the world. While Marx has often been denigrated for his philosophy, it was the perversion of that philosophy that caused. While the application of Locke’s idea of labor as the added worth of human hands shaping the natural world has changed significantly, it is still the philosophy that has most closely resonated to the way in which the greatest number of humans want to be governed. Works Cited Locke, John (1690) Two Treatises of Government: Chapter 5 – Of Property (http://wiretap. spies. com. /library/classics/ locke2nd. txt) Marx, Karl (April-August, 1844) Third Manuscript: Private Property and Labor (. cmn. edu/marx/1844-ep. mauscripts/1-property. labor. txt) Peterson, G. Paul Karl Marx and His Vision of Salvation: The Natural Law and Private Property, Review of Social Economy; 52(3), Fall 1994, pp. 377-90.