Assignment: Law practical writing

Assignment: Law practical writing March 20, 2015 xxxx Dear Mr Carlos Santiago, Mr Alfonso Ribeira owns one hectare land, which he uses for producing ethical foie gras. He does this by using a method of forced-feeding geese. Ethical foie gras is produced by making use of the natural instinct of geese to eat the wild yellow lupines seeds in the winter months. Which is then used for the production of foie gras. Due to the conduct of which occurred on 1 December 2014 – when insecticide was applied on my client’s property by the defendant Mr. Carlos Santiago – my client, Mr Alfonso Ribeira, has suffered losses both towards his geese and his business. Therefore I hereby demand, on behalf of my client Mr. Alfonso Ribeira, a sum of (approximately) ‘10.000,- to compensate these loss(es). This liability is based on the basic rule for tort liability in the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) found in Art. 1:101, (1): †A person who suffers legally relevant damage has a right to reparation from a person who caused the damage ‘intentionally’ or ‘negligently’ or is otherwise accountable for the ‘causation’ of damage.† The demand has been established on the basis of negligence and causation, which has lead to legally relevant damages. These actions are the following: You were aware of Mr Alfonso Rebeira’s business on his hectare; The insecticide comes with a precaution measure, on when and how to use it – making it evident that it should not be applied on windy days – for which you have ignored. The insecticide was blown on the lupin seeds. You were fully aware that the geese were eating the seeds, and that this would cause in their death, yet no warning was given to your neighbor at the time that the product was sprayed. The death of the geese has caused damage to Mr Alfonso Rebeira’s business and therefore an economic detriment. The fact that you used the insecticide on a day which was prescribed NOT to use, has led to the chain of liable activities. The decision to use the insecticide on a windy day has resulted in negligent behavior, according to Article 3:102: ‘A person causes legally relevant damage negligently when that person causes the damage by conduct. Does not meet the particular standard of care provided by a statutory provision whose purpose is the protection of the person suffering the damage from that damage. Does not otherwise amount to such care as could be expected from a reasonably careful person in the circumstances of the case’ On the one hand you have followed the statutory regulations by applying the insecticide between the required months, as stated in the regional Insecticide Regulation (2008). On the other hand you did not amount to the expected care when you sprayed the insecticide on a windy day regardless of the warning stated on the label. Therefore you have not met the standard stated in Article 3:102 (b). This makes you liable for negligence. Regarding the insecticide regulation, you have had enough time to use the product on a windless day between the months. Furthermore, since you have had more than enough time to spray the insecticide on a windless day after the 1st of December, you have acted negligently. The activity that occurred negligently: on 1 December 2014, (the defendant) Carlos Santiago applied an insecticide to his young olive trees in accordance with the regional Insecticide Regulation (2008) which stated: * Insecticide can be applied only from 1 May to 1 January at the discretion of the user. The label on the insecticide prescribed the following precaution; To spray the insecticide on windless days. Art. 4:101, (1) (1) A person causes legally relevant damage to another if the damage is to be regarded as a consequence of: ‘ (a) That person’s conduct; or ‘ (b) a source of danger for which that person is responsible (2) In cases of personal injury or death the injured persons’ predisposition with respect to the type or extent of the injury sustained is to be disregarded negligence DCFR: Article3:102 Negligence ‘Apersoncauseslegallyrelevantdamagenegligentlywhenthatpersoncausesthedamagebyconductwhicheither: (a)Doesnotmeettheparticularstandardofcareprovidedbyastatutoryprovisionwhosepurposeistheprotectionofthepersonsufferingthedamagefromthatdamage; (b)Doesnototherwiseamounttosuchcareascouldbeexpectedfromareasonablycarefulpersoninthecircumstancesofthecase’ issue rule analyses application conclusion Alfonso Ribeira started a business producing ethical foie gras. – Carlos owns the adjacent hectare. (Ethical foie gras is produced by making use of the natural instinct of geese to eat acorns, different types of grasses and the wild yellow lupines seeds in the winter months) On 1 December 2014, Carlos applied an insecticide to his young olive trees in accordance with the regional Insecticide Regulation (2008). Insecticide can be applied only from 1 May to 1 January at the discretion of the user. here is light wind in these months and therefore the toxic product does not easily spread to neighboring fields. The product labels also warn users to spray the insecticide on windless days. On 1 December 2014 a strong wind hit the region. Carlos, carried out his plan to spray his trees on that day. The yellow lupines were exposed for a few days to the insecticide. Result: 50 geese died because they ate the seeds of the yellow lupines.

Philosophy topic - Persuation paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Philosophy topic - Persuation paper - Essay Example to meet I Doc and reason with him, heart to heart, with the argument that, â€Å"evil is to be abandoned and slavery holds no purpose or value compared to the good that can be shared in life.† As Doct Man was riding his bike to I Doc’s lair, the evil villain suddenly appeared in his Doc-mobile and swept him off the road, kidnapping him. When Doct Man awoke, he found himself in the I Doc lair with the villain’s own henchmen guarding his prison door. Suddenly, Doct Man heard the door open and the guards appeared, ordering him to march to dinner to be the guest of I Doc. As all in the tri-state region knew of the reasoning and persuasive power of Doct Man, it seemed that I Doc had also heard of his reputation as a philosopher and wanted to see if he could be convinced under threat of torture to join the mayhem as part of his team. Doct Man, however, was certain of his ability to persuade I Doc to the opposite view. As he sat in his chair at the dinner table, I Doc welcomed Doct Man and apologized for the abduction. He explained his plan to conquer and subjugate the tri-state through the I Slave technology. Doct Man replied that, â€Å"I fear not any man, nor any thing in this earth, for I cannot be harmed by evil.† Surprised, I Doc asked him how this is possible. Doct Man replied by saying, â€Å"I am not identified with this body, and this body is not I. As the universe is eternal, a cycle of cycles, so too am I an eternal being, and will survive whatever evil you can muster without wavering in the slightest. My power comes from my Soul, eternal and wise, and this world is but a moment, a blink of the eye, in the context of my Being. You will exhaust yourself within days in your evil plan. The people will rise. Reinforcements will come from abroad. No matter how much you may wish to repress them with your technology, the will of the people is strong. There are billions ready to assist in the war of resistance to I Slave. But I alone come here in peace and tell you

Ponzi and Pyramid Schemes Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Ponzi and Pyramid Schemes - Research Paper Example Though, some forms of these schemes can claim to sell a product, but that product is actually a camouflage to hide their Pyramid arrangement (Roberts et al., 2007; ScamWatch, 2012; Valentine, 1998; Roos, 2012). Basically, there are two tell-tale symbols that a business item or product is only being employed to cover a Pyramid scheme i.e. Stock loading and lack of corporate sales. In case of stock loading a business support program persuades workers to purchase more products than they could ever trade, frequently at inflated costs. In this scenario, the top management of an organization and Pyramid launcher generates considerable profits, even without bringing that product into the marketplace (Roberts et al., 2007; ScamWatch, 2012; Valentine, 1998; Roos, 2012). In addition, the people behind the scenes generate a lot of money for inventory that just accumulates in their basements. In this scenario, lack of retail sales is as well a red flag that ensures the life of a Pyramid. A lot o f Pyramid schemes claim that their product is selling like hot cakes. However, the fact is that the sales happen simply among people within the Pyramid system or to new recruits joining the Pyramid scheme and not to the general public (Roberts et al., 2007; ScamWatch, 2012; Valentine, 1998; Roos, 2012). A Ponzi scheme is closely related to a Pyramid for the reason that it rotates around endless recruiting. However, in a Ponzi scheme the promoter normally has no product to put up for sale and pays no charges to investors who employ new "associates†. Additionally, the advertiser generates income by attracting a stream of people, assuring them a very high rate of return on immediate deals. Normally, in Ponzi scheme, there is no actual investment chance, and the promoter immediately makes use of the cash from new recruits to disburse obligations payable for a longer-standing to the associates of the plan. In simple word, there is an appearance that satisfactorily reviews this plan : It is known as "stealing from Peter to pay Paul." A number of law enforcement officials describe a Ponzi system as a "Peter-Paul" scam (Roberts et al., 2007; Valentine, 1998; Roos, 2012). Moreover, Ponzi schemes are trapping a lot of investors who have large sums to spend and who are allegedly knowledgeable and money-wise sophisticated (Rowe, 2000). Applicable law regulating the shame The business and methodology behind a Ponzi scheme, definitely has a triangular arrangement. The traitor is at the top most position. He is the chief of repeatedly growing stairs of investors. Though, there is dissimilarity between how both traditional Pyramid and Ponzi systems are executed. The vital difference between a Pyramid and Ponzi system is that a Ponzi plotter will simply ask its victim to invest in a deal. They will not ask them to perform any other activity or job except to invest money. They will ask their victims to wait until their investment is refunded. The Ponzi schemer is the brain behind the entire scheme and is simply shuffling money from one place to another. Moreover, a Pyramid scheme launcher offers an opportunity to its victim to generate money himself. Hence, it requires additional work, for instance, they can ask him to buy a franchise or license and start employing more people like himself. The staff will frequently disburse the recruiter a part of his income. All the same, Pyramid schemes are illegal. Moreover, a number of legal businesses, such as Mary Kay and The Pampered Chef, have been