CORPORATE FINANCE - Minicase Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

CORPORATE FINANCE - Minicase - Essay Example D0 = 2.00 2.12 2.247 2.382 1.88 1.76 1.65 . . . (2) What is the firm's current stock price (Ehrhardt & Brigham, 2006) = = = = $30.29. (3) What is the stock's expected value 1 year from now (Ehrhardt & Brigham, 2006) = = = = $32.10. (4) What are the expected dividend yield, the capital gains yield, and the total return during the first year (Ehrhardt & Brigham, 2006) Total return = 13.0% Dividend yield = $2.12/$30.29 = 7.0% Capital gains yield = 6.0% The dividend yield in the first year is 10 percent, while the capital gains yield is 6 percent. e. Now assume that the stock is currently selling at $30.29. What is the expected rate of return on the stock (Ehrhardt & Brigham, 2006) s= s= $2.12/$30.29 + 0.060 = 0.070 + 0.060 = 13%. f. What would the stock price be if its dividends were expected to have zero growth (Ehrhardt & Brigham, 2006) 0 1 2 3 | | | | 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.77 1.57 1.39 . . . P0 = 15.38 P0 = PMT/r = $2.00/0.13 = $15.38. g. Now assume that Temp Force is expected to experience supernormal growth of 30% for the next 3 years, then to return to its long-run constant growth rate of 6%. What is the stock's value under these conditions What is its expected dividend yield and capital gains yield in Year 1 In Year 4 (Ehrhardt & Brigham, 2006) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | |...What is the required rate of return on the firm's stock (Ehrhardt & Brigham, 2006) g. Now assume that Temp Force is expected to experience supernormal growth of 30% for the next 3 years, then to return to its long-run constant growth rate of 6%. What is the stock's value under these conditions What is its expected dividend yield and capital gains yield in Year 1 In Year 4 (Ehrhardt & Brigham, 2006) The dividend yield in year 1 is 4.80 percent, and the capital gains yield is 8.2 percent. After year 3, the stock becomes a constant growth stock, with g = capital gains yield = 6.0% and dividend yield = 13.0% - 6.0% = 7.0%. h. Is the stock price based more on long-term or short-term expectations Answer this by finding the percentage of Temp Force's current stock price based on dividends expected more than 3 years in the future (Ehrhardt & Brigham, 2006). i. Suppose Temp Force is expected to experience zero growth during the first 3 years and then to resume its steady-state growth of 6% in the fourth year. What is the stock's value now What is its expected dividend yield and its capital gains yield in Year 1 In Year 4 (Ehrhardt & Brigham, 2006) j. Finally, assume that Temp Force's earnings and dividends are expected to decline by a constant 6% per year, that is, g = -6%.

Traveler Transportation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Traveler Transportation - Essay Example n, reduction of traffic congestion, improvement of the neighborhood quality of life and provision of equity in transportation accessibility oppose the practical goals of sufficient organization of multimodal transportation infrastructure within metropolitan areas. Traveler transportation, having its peculiar features, represents a rather complex field of work for the transportation professional. This paper proposes the insight into the main differences of traveler transportation from the freight one, highlights some of the difficulties arising in the process of traveler transportation planning and discusses the present day issues faced by the professionals in traveler transportation. On the one hand, traveler and freight transportation have much in common. On the other, traveler transportation is more complicated for statistical studies, modeling travel-demand impacts and transport system regulation than freight transportation is. It has some specific features not characteristic with freight transportation. The complexity of travel behavior and recent issues in the field turn traveler transportation planning and modeling into a really challenging task. F. Witlox and B. Van Broeckhoven (2002) in their report on quality attributes in passenger and freight transportation state that there is much similar between the two fields. Comparing the characteristics of the traveling people, their families and aims of trips with the characteristics of the shippers, consignees and goods transported, they find that though the specific characteristics and conditions differ, they play a similar role in decision making and the major factors considered are almost the same: cost, time, flexibility and frequency. They add the comfort factor for passengers, noting that some goods also need very careful or quick transportation. They also distinguish a number of other factors of less importance, such as, for example, tracing and tracking for freight transportation. But in both cases

The Principles Of Classicist And Positivist Criminology Criminology Essay

The Principles Of Classicist And Positivist Criminology Criminology Essay Classicist and positivists do share some principles however it can be said that they oppose each other to an extent. Classicist criminology is an approach which looks at the idea of rational action and free will. This approach was developed in the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century whereby they intended to produce a criminal justice system that was clear and legitimate and was based on everyone being equal. Positivist criminology is founded by the notion of scientific understanding of crime and criminality, the basic concept is based on the idea that behaviour is determined. There are two types of positivism that try to seek the explanation of crime and deviancy and they are biological positivism and psychological positivism. The origins of positivism and the two interrelated developments were from the nineteenth century. This writing will attempt to explain to what extent Classicist and Positivist criminology oppose each other and to explore if they share any similarities with each other. In order to do this, certain factors will be addressed in order to answer this question to see how much they oppose each other and what they share. The factors which will be looked at are where these theories first derived from, human nature of the offender, definition of crime, the focus of analysis, cause of crime, the response to the crime, crime prevention and operation of the criminal justice system. In the eighteenth century many tried to seek the understanding and would question the natural laws of society. Cesare Beccaria had observed the social contract as being selfish. Believing that law should be limited as much as possible also prohibit actions which would increase instead of decreasing crime. Beccaria had examined administration of criminal justice where he had believed the rights of offenders are protected and torture is forbidden. If for example the victim and accused are in different classes the jury should be equally from both classes. Beccarias work was then led on by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) he believed in utilitarianism. He also believed that the society was based on the ideas of pleasure and pain. Beccarias principles led to the French code 1791 which classed everyone as not being similar in the court of law i.e. a sane person is different to an insane person. Benthams work was criticised for not seeing criminals as being individuals. Positivism was born. Andre Guerry (1802-1866) examined if poverty was somehow related to crime. Education was also looked at, whether people with learning difficulties were related to crime and deviance. It was also investigated that although crime was higher in wealthy areas the poor were the most to offend. Two strands of scientific research which were attempted to seek explanation for criminal behaviour was biological and psychological. Biological positivism came from the work of Lombroso, whereby he tried to identify different types of individuals. He examined individuals due to their appearances which apparently showed that they were criminals. This was the concept of atavistic criminal. Psychological positivism emerged in England within the criminal justice institutions. Psychological theories were based on the ideas of the process of the mind in order to understand criminal behaviour. The history and development behind Classicism and Positivism show that they opposed each other. This could be down to the fact that Classicists came from a less modernised time to Positivists and thus lacked in the opportunity to be able to investigate such views as they didnt have the sufficient means to do so. In Classicism, human nature is considered as rational, free and governed by self interest. Human beings are seen to be equal in that they make their own decisions and have free will so therefore able to reason. Classicist criminologists would say the nature of the offender is voluntaristic therefore they make actions on their own accord and they are seen as being responsible for them choosing what they do with their time and also responsible for the consequences that may occur due to their actions. Although free will may not exist perfectly, the criminal law is mainly based on its presumed vitality and forms the foundation for penal sanction (Fogel, 1995, pg183) With positivism, human nature is seen as being determined or prone to certain types of behaviour such as biological and social conditioning and differences with the individual. All individual behaviour is a determined result of circumstances. Positivism say human beings have animal nature which is then socialised into the values within society so that the link from criminal to law abiding citizen in a range or degrees of socialisation. Both Classicism and Positivism oppose here. Classicism says that human nature is seen as rational and that human beings have the capacity to equally reason and to be able to make their own choices for example they may steal from a shop because they want to and also aware of it, whereas Positivism is determined due to biological and social circumstances for example a person from a criminal family may also become a criminal due to child rearing methods.. The Definition of Crime for classicism is that which goes against society. It is not an effect against the state but against the individuals of the society. Individuals of the society abide by the social contract therefore a criminal act which goes against that society would be regulated through legislation they concentrate heavily on the act and not its surroundings such as the reasons, circumstances and influences. Classicism has the view which is founded by the Anglo Saxon law that individuals are free to do what they like as long as it is not forbidden by law. It is about law and morality concerning the protection of the social contract. Positivism defines crime using the word deviant as they view crime as violation of legal codes. As something that may be normal behaviour may be a violation of the legal code. However something that is deviant may not be a violation of the legal codes. They take the value of society which can be scientifically taken and from this it is judged as to whether an act is deviant or not. Classicism defines crime as a violation of the social contract whereby they have free will and self interests and for them to violate the law is breaking the social contract. On the other hand positivism define crime as a violation of the legal code, which in some way is similar to classism as they both define crime as breaching the law. The focus of analysis for classicism is based on the criminal act. Therefore it doesnt take into account of the individuals circumstances. So instead of focussing on the individual, they only see what criminal act they have committed and what the best punishment would be in accordance with the law. The main focus would be the criminal act committed. Positivisms focus of analysis focuses on the offender therefore looks at the offenders characteristics, rather than the offenders criminal acts. Offenders can be scientifically monitored and the reasons that lead up to their criminality can be diagnosed and try and be treated or try and be dealt with in some way. It would be the experts job to try and spot the reasons as to why the conditions that leads to criminality in a particular case. Classicism and positivism oppose here as their focus of analysis differ. Classicism looks mainly at the criminal act and how anyone who has committed a crime will be punished based on their actions however positivism focuses on the offender and look at what may have triggered the individual to have turn to deviant and criminal behaviour in the first place. The whole concept of the Causes of crime for the Classicist paradigm is that it links to the question of rational motivation. The cause of crime is said to be due to rationality, individual choice and irrational choice. The consensual majority where there is proper balance due to reason and self interest, the costs of crime outweighs the benefit. Therefore no one should want to commit crime as this would be an irrational calculation. However some occasions there may be have been benefits which were greater than costs and so crime was seen as a rational calculation. Criminality is basically seen as making the wrong choices which violate the law. Individuals are held to blame for their actions. For positivism the cause of crime is a product of the under socialisation of the individual. This can be a result of number of things such as innate genetic or physiological incapacity of the individual to be easily socialised, family background which is in use of socialisation techniques in child rearing practices. Causes of crime are due to pathology, individual deficiency, its not a matter of the individual making their own choice. If a person is from a family which have a criminal member within them then they are considered to be high risk of committing crime. Every criminal is the result of individual, physical and social conditions Classicism and positivism are similar in the sense that they try to identify the causes of crime. However Classicists believe that individuals make their own conscious choices but Positivist believe that individuals subconsciously are led to crime due to their background and other factors and therefore do not commit crime out of choice. Classicisms response to the crime is punishment. The punishment should be proportionate to the crime. for example if a wealthy women walks out of a shop and is found that she has stolen a pen she should be charged with theft, and if another woman who is poor and walks out of the shop with baby food to feed her child she also should be charged with theft. So therefore classicists would assume that both should be punished for their actions no matter what the circumstances are as people are seen as being capable of being able to make their own choice in what they do so therefore should face the consequences of their actions everyones response to crime should be equal. Rather than being focused towards punishment, Positivists response to crime is treatment towards the offenders. Offenders behaviours are analysed in terms of factors which may be beyond the control of the person. So therefore in order to respond to crime is to be able to understand the reasons as to why the offender acted in this behaviour. All offenders are different from each other thus treatment is seen to have to be individualised. So if they are sentenced for a crime it shouldnt be on nature as to which the crime had been committed, it should take into account the diagnosis of the offender and the form of treatment which should be given to the individual. Classicism and Positivism oppose with each other on the response to crime, classicism focuses on punishing the offender for the crime they have committed whereas positivism focuses on trying to give treatment to the offender and reform, both theories response to crime differ. In order to prevent crime, classicism has the idea of deterrence. As Beccaria viewed that punishments should be equal to offences, to defer criminals from re-offending. Jeremy Bentham assumed that society is based on the notions of pain and pleasure. If the crime is committed and the punishment is more painful therefore the amount of pleasure that is received will prevent the crime, this was based on Benthams moral Formula. Bentham believed that condemning someones actions is more useful than physically harming them. Positivism on the other hand tries to diagnose and classify. They have the idea of early intervention. Individuals learn not to offend when they gain self control, those who do offend dont have self control therefore are likely to control. Child rearing is seen to be a important development in having the ability to have self control which was argued by Gottfredson and Hirschi from the control theory. Poor child rearing methods which involve lack of supervision from parents lead to individuals with low self control which then could turn into them becoming offenders in the future. The way classicism and positivism deal with crime prevention is seen as a similarity, even though both approaches are different, they both try to establish a way to reduce crime. Classicism tries to reduce crime with deterrence and Positivism tries to reduce crime with treatment. The classicist way is to punish in order to deter others whereas positivists try to prevent the crime from occurring from the outset. The classical approach on the operation of the criminal justice system is to take a legal-philosophical approach. The criminal justice system looks at just the criminal act. The rule of law says that each violation of law that has been breached should be treated in the same way. The main aim of the legal proceedings is equality where everyone is seen equal in the eyes of the law. Classicism shows the importance of the clarity in giving a offender a sentencing, the offender should receive a sentencing that ensures the pain from the sentence outweighs the gain from the offence. Positivists take a scientific approach. As offenders are all different and individual, they can be somehow measured and classified in some way. Instead of seeing people in terms of equal rights positivist view emphasises difference. Therefore they can be scientifically studied focusing on areas where there is a high crime rate and low social economy. Classicism take a very different approach as to the operation of the criminal justice system as they take a legal philosophical approach whereby the criminal justice system looks at the criminal act instead of the person who actually committed the crime which differs with the notions of positivism as they take a scientific approach and believe all individuals are different and shouldnt be sentenced based on what criminal act they had committed because there may be factors which may have led to their criminality. Classicism and Positivism are both very influential theories that relate to crime and deviance. We see both approaches in dealing with crime in modern times. Punishment, to punish offenders and deter, and reform methods and education to prevent the crime from happening. Classicism exemplifies its notions through the enlightenment and positivism through moral statistics. They both are very different and therefore oppose and differ on many factors though they do share some similarities. To conclude, the main difference between classism and positivism is that classicists look at punishment and positivism looks at treatment and causes of crime. However one of the main similarities between them is that they both look for causes of crime and have ideas in reducing crime but they have very different views in ways to achieve that result. Classicism and positivism oppose each other to quite an extent, they have some similarities however the amount the both oppose is a lot higher.

Boot Camps and Juvenile Crime Essay -- Juvenile Crime Boot Camps Incar

Boot Camps and Juvenile Crime Five years ago, responding to an increase in serious juvenile crime, the state of Maryland initiated one of the nation's largest boot camp programs for teenage criminals. The program, called the Leadership Challenge, quickly became the model for other states. But last week, after reviewing a task force report that documented instances of physical abuse at their camps, Maryland officials appeared on the verge of conceding that the current initiative was a failure. Military-style discipline may work as punishment at juvenile boot camps, but it has not been effective as rehabilitation. The Maryland experience, together with problems in other states, has already led some states to close their boot camps and even to rethink how their penal laws treat young offenders. All in all, it is a remarkable turn of events for an idea that was once greeted as a breakthrough in the fight against juvenile crime There is increasing evidence that boot camps never worked. A national study last year by the Koch Crime Institute, a public policy group in Topeka, Kan., showed that recidivism among boot camp attendees ranged from 64 percent to 75 percent, slightly higher than for youths sentenced to adult prisons. Gerald Wells, a senior research associate at the Koch Institute, said of the report, "The shocking parts are the allegations of abuse, but the more alarming parts are the failures." Research has also shown, according to Mr. Wells and other penal justice experts, that these camps were grounded in a false and unexamined assumption. "People thought boot camps shaped up a lot of servicemen during three wars," Mr. Wells added. "But just because you place someone in a highly structured environment with discipline, does not mean once they get home, and are out of that, they will be model citizens." Boot camps have their roots in the 1970's, with the advent of large, well-organized and extremely violent street gangs. In response to these groups, many states began to imprison more young people. By the 1990's, as the number of repeat juvenile offenders rose to record levels, it became clear that prison sentences were not working. In 1994, nearly 10,000 juveniles were charged with criminal offenses, an all-time high. More than 2,300 of them were charged with murder, compared with fewer than 1,000 in 1980, according to th... ...and they also need to learn respect, self-respect, discipline and a new way of conducting themselves in society," Ms. Townsend said. "Facilities that provide structure and discipline can be run effectively and have a role in our fight after juvenile crime." Many experts disagree, citing the expense of running such programs properly. "It's a budget issue," said Doris Mackenzie, a University of Maryland criminology professor. "They are popular in the public, people feel we should treat these kids tough, and everyone can get onto the bandwagon," she said. "But when it comes to this extra expense of doing the follow-up, we find, the money is not there." In any case, juvenile crime has been falling since 1994, after an overall drop in the nation's juvenile population. This will make it highly unlikely, say political observers, that voters will agree to pay for individualized rehabilitation. Much more likely, they say, is that the 27,000 young people who once went to boot camp each year will instead be sent to prison. As bad as boot camps have proved to be, Mr. Wells added, "once you start incarcerating kids, you have lost. But unfortunately, that is where we seem headed."

Negligance: New Haverford Partnership Essay

Plaintiff 1 is Elizabeth Stroot, a 33 year old graduate student who has suffered from allergies and asthma since childhood. Stroot was a tenant at Haverford apartments. Plaintiff 2 is Joletta Watson, friend and roommate of Elizabeth Stroot and a tenant of Haverford apartments from 1990 to 1994. Defendant is New Haverford Partnership, the owner of Haverford apartments. Facts In August 1992, Elizabeth Stroot and a roommate, Joletta Watson, moved into an apartment on the third floor of Haverford Place. (Case Law) While living in this apartment with Watson, Stroot immediately discovered mold around the windows and bathroom. Upon this discovery, Stroot attempted to remove the mold with bleach, however, the mold keep returning. In addition to the mold, Stroot also discovered leaks in her bedroom ceiling and in the kitchen and bathroom sinks. About a year later, in September 1993, Stroot’s roommate, Watson, moved out and Stroot moved into a one bedroom apartment in a different building within Haverford Place. After moving in, Stroot discovered that the bathroom ceiling in the new apartment also leaked. After living there for a few months, the leaks had caused holes in the drywall and there was a black substance covering the edges of the holes. Whenever the shower was on in the apartment above Stroot’s, black water ran out of the holes. Stroot inf ormed management and some efforts were made to fix the upstairs shower. No repairs were made in Stroot’s apartment. The landlord stated that â€Å"the problem was caused by the upstairs tenants taking â€Å"sloppy† showers.† A few months later, on May 6 1994, Stroot called emergency maintenance because the hold in her bathroom ceiling was expanding and had become very large. It was no longer just a leak; she stated it was â€Å"raining†. Maintenance came to inspect her apartment and said that they would fix her apartment once the problem in the upstairs apartment was resolved. Ten days later, on May 16, 1994, Stroot’s bathroom ceiling collapsed and her bathroom floor flooded with water from the ceiling. The now exposed ceiling and also the debris from the drywall were covered with black, green, orange, and white mold. Stroot stated that the room was  filled with a strong and nauseating odor. Again, Stroot called emergency maintenance and they sta ted that they could not do anything until the following morning. Once morning came, Stroot could not breathe. Stroot contacted her doctor and he recommended that she get an ambulance and go to the hospital. After being released from the hospital that day, Stroot made the decision that she could no longer live at Haverford Place. Due to her suffering from allergies and asthma since childhood, while living at Haverford Place, Stroot was forced to go to the emergency room seven times from asthma attacks. Also, she had spent a total of nine days as an inpatient where she received intravenous steroids twelve times. Stroot incurred medical expense in the amount of $28,000. Stroot sued New Haverford Partnership to recover damages for their negligence in permitting the water leaks and mold to persist in her apartment for the cause of her medical issues. While Watson lived at Haverford Place, during the years of 1990 to 1994, she experienced many of the same issues as Stroot had in her apart ment. During the first few years of Watson’s residency at Haverford Place, she traveled frequently and was not home that often. However, the pipe under her sink burst and her kitchen was flooded with hot water. Maintenance did fix this pipe but the cabinets remained damaged by the water. She also had water issues in her bathroom. There was a gap in her tub between the tiles and the tub. Behind this gap was rotten drywall. Black mold was living behind the toilet, around the sink, on the ceiling and the windows were coated with a gummy substance. Watson attempted to remove the mold several times and it would continue to return. In 1993, Watson no longer traveled and was home more. During this time, Watson started to experience health problems. These problems included frequent headaches, sinus issues, chest pains, body aches, and fatigue. Watson went to he doctor and obtained medicine, however, she did not feel any better until she was no longer living at Haverford Place, six mo nths later. Watson had developed an allergy to Penicillium and suffered from permanent upper respiratory problems due to her exposure to the mold. Procedure The plaintiffs, Stroot and Watson, brought the appeal on three theories of tort liability: 1. Ordinary or common law negligence based on Landlord’s alleged failure to maintain safe and sanitary conditions in the apartments, 2. Negligence based on alleged violations of the New Castle County Code 3, 3. Negligence based on alleged violations of the Landlord Tenant Code. The jury of the trial courts found in favor of the plaintiffs on all three forms of negligence. The plaintiffs also offered testimony from several expert witnesses. The first expert witness is Dr. Yang, a mycologist and microbiologist. After inspecting Haverford Place, he stated that there was excessive and atypical mold growth in the apartment buildings caused by long term leaks. He opined the widespread mold contamination posed a health risk to tenants. The next, Dr. Johnanning, a physician board-certified in environmental and occupational medicine, also inspected and noted similar data from Haverford Place. He took blood samples from the plaintiffs and after analysis, he opined there was a high concentration of toxic mold at Haverford Place and this significantly and permanently increase the severity of Stroot’s asthma. He also st ated that Watson developed an allergy to Penicillium and suffered from permanent upper respiratory problems as a result to her exposure to the mold. Dr. Gordon, a neuropsychologist, another expert witness, studied the mental defects associated with the atypical molds. He evaluated Stroot and came to the conclusion that she suffers from significant cognitive impairment in the areas of attention, concentration, memory and executive functions. He opined these problems were permanent and were a result of her exposure to the mold. Dr. Rose, a physician board certified in pulmonary, occupational and environmental medicine also examined Stroot and opined that she had developed osteopenia as a result of her steroid use while living at Haverford Place. The last expert witness, Michael Lynn, an architect and partner in real estate due diligence firm performed a limited property condition assessment at Haverford Place. He opined that the deferred maintenance on the buildings was excessive and the landlord’s failure to maintain the property was the proximate cause of the unhealthy and unsanitary conditions observed. The jury awarded Stroot $1,000,000 for personal injuries and $5,000 for property damage. Watson was awarded $40,000 for personal injuries. Both Watson and Stroot’s awards were reduced by 22% for their level of contributory negligence. Issue Was New Haverford Partnership liable for negligence? Were the expert  witness’s testimonies reliable? Is the amount of the damage awards appropriate? Were the plaintiff’s partially at fault due to their own negligence? Holding The landlord filed an appeal to the trial court’s outcome with claims of error in the plaintiffs allegations of the three causes of action in tort liability of the landlord, the opinions of the expert witness were deficient in several respects, and that the amounts awarded to Stroot and Watson were excessive. The Supreme Court held that New Haverford Partnership was negligent and the amounts awarded to Stroot and Watson was supported. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Stroot and Watson Reasoning There was no error found in the trial court’s decision to allow the plaintiffs to pursue an ordinary, or common law, negligence claim and the jury found the landlord negligent due to failure to maintain the property allowing for unsafe and unsanitary living conditions and breaching the Landlord Tenant Code. The landlord owed the tenants a duty of care and the landlord breached that duty and due and the breach was the proximate cause of the tenant’s injuries. The court finds that the experts’ opinions were within the realm of scientific reliability and that the trial court acted with their realm of discretion in allowing them. In Delaware, the presumption is that a jury verdict is â€Å"correct and just.† The court has the authority to grant a new trial if it believes that the verdict was based upon â€Å"passion, partiality, prejudice, mistake, or misapprehension on the part of the jury.† It also states that a verdict will not be set aside unless it is â€Å"so grossly excessive as to show the Court’s conscience and sense of justice; and unless the injustice of allowing the verdict is clear.† Therefore, given the permanent nature of the Plaintiff’s injuries as well as the physical and emotional suffering that Stroot and Watson will have to endure the remainder of their lives, the court does not find the amount of damage awards to be unreasonable. Case Questions Critical Legal Thinking – What is negligence? Do you think the landlord was negligent in this case? Negligence is the failure to take proper care in doing something. Yes, the landlord was negligent in this case. They were aware of the major water leaks and mold issues and did not do anything to attempt to resolve the issues. With knowing the condition of the apartment buildings, they are required as a landlord to make the proper repairs to insure the buildings have safe and sanitary living conditions for their tenants. They were also aware of these conditions for at least four years. Business Ethics – Did New Haverford Partnership act ethically in this case? Do you think Stroot was partially at fault in this case? No, I do not think New Haverford Partnership acted ethically in this case. Their appeal arguing that the were not negligent, that the expert witnesses didn’t have valid cases and that the damage awards were excessive goes to show that they do not have any sympathy for the damages they have caused and also that they are not responsible for the damages. Howeve r, I do believe Stroot is partially at fault. She continued to live at the apartments after she was aware of the conditions. She knew her health was at risk after her first visit to the Emergency Room. She ended up going an additional six times. Contemporary Business – Do you think the award of damages in this case was appropriate? Why or Why not? I agree with the court’s decision in the amount of award of damages. Stroot and Watson both will have to suffer from mental and physical issues for the remainder of their lives due to the exposure to the mold. They will have recurring medical expenses due to these issues and the amount of the award will allow for payment of their future medical expenses and for personal damages. I do agree with the court’s decision to reduce their awards by 22% for their own negligence. Watson and Stroot both lived in Haverford place for multiple years and were well aware of the issues and condition of the buildings. They chose to cont inue to live there even after the negligence of the landlord was well known after they did not repair the multiple issues they called in. Also, Stroot had to go to the emergency room seven times before she decided not to live at Haverford Place. Citations Cheeseman, Henry. Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues, 7th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions. (Pg 772-773). New Haverford Partnerships v. Stroot and Watson, No. 549, 1999. Retrieved from http://courts.state.de.us/

Girls Are Better Than Boys

A Famous Place In Our Country Today, Pangkor Island is a popular island destination for local and Singapore holiday makers. It gets extremely busy during school and public holidays. One operator on the island reported that approximately 2000 holidaymakers were left without a place to stay on the island during the Chinese New Year holiday period. Of course, many people assume that there's plenty of available rooms on the island and that reservations weren't necessary.Having said so, there are indeed quite a number of resorts, motels and inns on Teluk Nipah and Pasir Bogak. In particular, Teluk Nipah. One end of the beach is chock-full with chalets, A-huts, small resorts and and restaurants. The accommodation here is quite affordable for budget travellers although not quite as cheap as what can be found on Tioman. Located about 90km south west from Ipoh and reachable by free from Lumut in only 35mins, Pangkor Island is 8 square km big and inhabited by 25000 people, mainly fishermen.Pan gkor Island Beach Resort is the getaway from the metropolitan life to rest, relax and rejuvenate. Located between Penang and Kuala Lumpur, the journey from the country’s capital takes only about 3 hours to the coastal town of Lumut, either by car or limousine coach, the scenic landscape is an experience by itself. Pangkor Island is an idyllic and beautiful island resort for a free a carefree and relaxing holiday.It’s natural scenery of green hills and palm-fringed beaches of fine white sand lapped by the warm blue waters of the Straits of Malacca is truly magnificent. Therefore I chose the Pangkor island as a place famous in Malaysia because it does not need expensive costly and not wasting my time. We also will be soothed and comforted by natural flora and fauna of the island. Beside that, our mind will be fresh when there.

Linear Parent Functions (Algebra Help)

Linear Parent Functions (Algebra Help) In Algebra Functions, a function is described as a set of data that has one distinct output (y) for each input (x). A function also describes the relationship between inputs (x) and outputs (y). As a testament to the various patterns between x and y, several types of functions exist. Algebraic Functions LinearAbsolute ValueQuadraticExponentialTrigonometricRationalLogarithmic Each type of Algebraic function is its own family and possesses unique traits. If you want to understand the characteristics of each family, study its parent function, a template of domain and range that extends to other members of the family. This article focuses on the linear parent function. Linear Parent Function Characteristics The equation of the linear parent function is y x. Refer to Linear Parent Function for the graph of y x. Domain: All real numbers Range: All real numbersThe slope, or rate of change, is constant. Linear Function Flips, Shifts, and Other Tricks Family members have common and contrasting attributes. If your dad has a big nose, then you probably have one as well. Nonetheless, just as you are different from your parents, so is a subsequent function different from its parent. Note: Any changes to the equation will alter the graph. Vertical Shiftsy x1The graph shifts up 1 unit. y x-4The graph shifts down 4 units. Changes in Steepnessy 3xThe graph becomes steeper. y  ½xThe graph becomes flatter. Negative Influencey  The graph flips and slopes downward, instead of upward. (See Calculate a Negative Slope.)