RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS - Essay Example Restrictive covenants in land law prohibit use of land in a particular manner. They are agreements between landowners in which one party agrees to refrain from use of land as prescribed by the agreement. This paper seeks to discuss concepts of restrictive covenants with the aim of advising parties to a land case. The paper will explore the nature and extent of liability as imposed by restrictive covenants. Facts of the case The case involves a landowner, Connor, who sells part of his land in order to meet his financial obligations. In January, Connor sold off a portion of his property to Jane. Part of the terms of the covenant was that the sold piece was supposed to be strictly meant for residential purposes and by only one family. A month later, Connor sold another part of his land to Bullhorn Company subject to a number of terms. Under the agreement, the immediate and any subsequent purchaser of the property was supposed to develop and maintain a fence around the subject property. The terms also provided that the property would only be used for at most twelve residential units and that the developed houses could only be used for residential purposes. Upon development of twelve independent houses by Bullhorn, the property was sold to separate buyers on terms that the new owners would use the property solely for residential purposes and that fees shall be paid by the owners for maintenance of roadway. Alex, one of the buyers from Bullhorn, has however been using his house as a bail hostel. The other new owners have been aggrieved and as a result refused to repair the boundaries and to pay the maintenance fees. Jane has also sold her property to Oscar who has used it for commercial purpose. Legal issues Covenants A covenant creates legal obligations on the parties to which it imputes liability. Defined as a legal promise, it exposes the promisor to liability as described by the covenant’s terms. Though covenants are considerably similar to contractual agr eements, they do not have to be necessarily supported by consideration. As a result, covenants are regulated by common law and doctrines of equity from different perspectives. In cases where consideration supports the promisors’ intentions, covenants are enforceable under both common law and equity.1 However, law lacks authority over covenants made without consideration. The general principle of covenants is to restrict the use of a piece of land in a given way and once a covenant is made, a landowner looses rights over the land as prescribed by the covenant. Similarly, covenants that have been made over a piece of land bind subsequent owners of the land even though they were not part of the covenant. This general rule can however be exempted by express provisions of individual covenants.2 In determining liability of parties to covenants, the courts applies either or both common law and the doctrines of equity as discussed bellow Covenants under equity Benefits Running covena nts under equity is based on the principles of benefits and burden on rights over pieces of land. Benefits with respect to restrictive covenants can be derived from either, annexation, assignment of the benefits or through building scheme approach. Under the doctrine of annexation, that either can be expressed by the original parties to a covenant or can be implied by statutes, the terms of the restrictive covenants are deemed to bind successive owners of land. This means that a landowner at a particular time is liable for breach of terms of a covenant over the land irrespective of the fact that the timely owner was not part of the covenant. Express annexation was observed in the case of Newton Abbot Co-operative Society v Williamson & Treadgold [1952] Ch 2863

Analysis of Video “The World is Flat” Essay Example for Free

Analysis of Video â€Å"The World is Flat† Essay Key issues or Problems in the video: The title The World is Flat was taken from a statement by Nandan Nilekani, the former Infosys (an Indian IT company) CEO. It seems like if hadnt met Nandan then he wouldnt have even written this book. He talks about Americans and the developing world but says almost nothing about Africa, Europe Australia. The World is flat applies better to people with similar kind of economic conditions. In developing world, a big portion of population is poor or much below poverty line as per American standard. Their first challenge is access to food and Education. How could they be part of level playing field and make this world flat. Friedman says first that Nineteenth century belonged to English, Twentieth Century to USA and Twenty first Century to China. Friedman argues that latest age of globalization will be spearheaded by Individuals. He just made this assumption after meeting the cab driver in Budapest Peruvian Dishware seller who have their own websites. The percentage of people doing their own business like this is still extremely low to claim that the era belongs to them. It feels like an exaggeration. Its conflicting that on one hand, he says 21st century belongs to China and on the other hand, he says latest age of globalization (which is now) will be spearheaded by Individuals. I can’t accept his methods and question his research and interview process. Friedman is stating something without actually based on real documented facts, but on talks with friends and CEOs he visits. By what it leaves out, it does nothing more than misinform the people around the World. In the end, he talks about Green New Clean energy which kind of feel out of context from the main topic. Critique of video, Supporting arguments, rebuttals of ideas: I think there is a lot to criticize about the Video â€Å"The World is Flat†. Friedmans view of the globalized world is often obsessed with the successful multinational corporations of India. In the video he talks about individuals or â€Å"free agents†, but being a free agent is riskier. Free agents will not have fixed salary and health care benefits (Source: Brown, C.V.). If there is a free agent in India, he can’t work for American company without Social Security Number for Tax purposes. 90% of the worlds telephone calls, Internet traffic, and investments are local, suggesting that this Video has overstated the trends. His talk of a new flat world  where information, money, ideas, and people can move worldwide faster than before is unreal, we just see a fraction of what he describes globalization (Refer Source:wiki). Globalization causes unemployment here in America. It is shipping jobs outside America where its easy to find cheap labor. The winners will be capitalists worldwide causing income inequality everywhere. This would imply that Globalization will make the world NON-Flat instead. He talks about mashing the two specializations together which doesn’t always give the better result. Actions I would take next and why or personal experience dealing with the issues: The video presents more of an American perspective. Friedmans work history has been mostly with The NY Times, and has definitely affected the way due to which he thinks this way. I would have liked his ideas in a more inclusive voice to show the whole World’s perspective. I would encourage fair trade instead of free trade. If we put his claims to test against documented facts. It will not pass. I would have liked more research and references. World will be actually a level playing field when everybody will have a fair opportunity to Education Resource of Technology. If I make a website and start selling say â€Å"Baseball bats†. First of all, there will be a Brand position issue that is why would people come to me instead of going to Store like â€Å"Sports Authority† or so where they can try and test things before buying. Secondly, In real world, its hard to be an Individual and manage the whole thing like getting the stuff made in foreign countries, handle the custom portion, get it shipped etc. on your own. Sources: (2014, May 9). The World is Flat. Retrieved Jun 7, 2011 from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Is_Flat Brown, C.V., Dehayes, D.W., Hoffer, J.A., Martin, E.W., Perkins, W.C. (2012). Managing information technology (7th ed.): Managing IT in a digital world. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Unitarism in the Workplace

Unitarism in the Workplace Generally speaking, Unitarism means that every workplace should be integrated as well as harmonious entity which exists for common goal. In unitarism the managements role is critical and main aim of management is to provide powerful leadership and good way of communiation.In unitarisized organization, Employees should be loyal to their organization as well as their management to meet up their common goals. Most of the unions in the world are existed for loyalty as well as commitment for their employees; however this is the main reason thats why they are not welcomed by Employers. Sometimes Employees became too familiar with management and sometimes this situation creates conflict between each other.( Morris, R., Mortimer, D. and Leece, P. (Eds). (1999) In Pluralism , Management supposed to make not only powerful and different sub-groups but also they has to powered these groups with its own legal loyalties and with their own set of objectives as well as leaders. From this discussion, there are mainly two major sub-groups arises Management and trade unions. In pluralism it is impossible for management to avoid conflict because Management only cares about achieving its objectives and goals and proper attention on Employees are not given, they just provide usual training to their employees to achieve goals. So in Pluralism, Management is totally focused on achieving goals rather then view employees on personal relationships.( Mortimer, D., Leece, P. and Morris, R. (Eds.), (1998)) What is Unitarisim? Well in simple sentence unitarism can be called as theory of ordinary purpose as well as mutual goals with no basic conflict of attention between labour and wealth (capital) As a result of this, Managements role diversify, less diversify towards enforcing and more powerful towards persuasion and Co-ordination. Mainly Trade unions are legal Council of employees, they are mainly dealt with conflict at workplace and it is not considers as a bad thing if management able to manage trade unions, this can lead management towards progress as well as positive change. (Wiesner, R. and Millett, B. (Eds.), (2001)) Conflict is a deviation, the outcome of Conflict may be: Poor communications in organizations between management and employees Poor management style as management may not be able to handle employees. HRM mainly strategic and logical approach for the management, it is also considered as organisations most precious assets People working in organisation donate for organisations success of the business. Human Resource Management had replaced the term Personnel Management as HRM involves the process of managing people in organisation. By simple mean, HRM is the process of employing people , developing their assets, utilizing, caring and compensating their services in terms of the job and managerial necessity.( Wood, J., Wallace, J., Zeffane, R., Schermerhorn, Hunt and Osborn, (2001)) There are mainly two approaches in HRM i.e. Soft HRM it relates with growth of humanism, Management gives proper training to their employees as if they are their personal. Hard HRM it relates with active combination of employees into firm objectives , Management seems to be hard with their employees , mostly they are focused on achieving goals. In Employment relationship, Neo-institutionalism is the term which is an expanded view of pluralist philosophy which is all about the function of rule-making. In management employee relationship, there are mainly two types rules Formal rules Substantive rules Neo-institutionalism also consists some other features such as Neo-intuitionalism is not only open but also endedness in terms of employee relationship Neo-Intuitionalism helps to understand the present in relationship with past Neo-Intuitionalism also describes and helps employees to understand the real world.( Wooden, M. (2000) , page no . 221) From recent Australian studies and world, it is shown that, Most of the work currently following unitarism tool of HRM ,because its been considered as soft HRM and in this Soft HRM, there are several criteria that fulfils todays dynamic worlds needs and wants , such as Soft HRM mainly focused on individuals own performance and its also focuses on individuals own development and in Unitarism , all of the employees and management of organization doing team-based work , so it is more favourable for employers. Where as in hard HRM , Management is mostly oriented towards result achieving , so Hard HRM is not very favourable for To achieve long term financial goals, most of the employers focused on development of employees because this can be proved positively for them in long term. References: Web references: Unitarism VS Pluralism http://forums.vogue.com.au/archive/index.php/t-122217.html Date assessed on 22-08-2009 Unitarily perspective from www.industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/unitary-perspective.html Date assessed on 22-08-2009 Book references: Teicher, Holland and Gough (2006) text book page no 42 to 46 Braverman, H. (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: the Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century, New York: Monthly Review Press (331.0904 B739 1 c.1) Bray, M., Deery, S., Walsh, J., and Waring, P. (2005) Industrial Relations: A Contemporary Analysis, Sydney: McGraw-Hill. Cole, Kris, (2001) Supervision: The Theory and Practice of First Line Management, Frenchs Forest, NSW: Prentice-Hall. Colvin, J. and Watson, G. (1998) The Workplace Relations Handbook: A Guide to the Workplace Relations Act 1996, Melbourne: Butterworth.

Frankenstein Essay -- essays research papers

The story Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus made different feelings to me. I read it first time about five years ago, and when I read it now, I understood the concept differently. The story has a from of letters from Mr. R. Walton, the traveler, to his sister Margaret. Walton wanted to reach the North Pole and wanted to discover new parts of the World. In the land of ice his ship found a man, Victor Frankenstein. He told his story, why he was there and what happened to him, to Mr. Walton in order to warn him from doing something ‘bad’. Mr. Victor Frankenstein was a scientist who wanted to discover something new. His desire for it was so strong that he put all his efforts and life to it. He studied chemistry, anthropology and other nature science. He made researches with death body and he wanted to alive it. One day he was successful and he created a man. It was ugly Creature with a man body shape, but very big and strong. Frankenstein was shocked by his work and he run away from his laboratory. When he went back, the Creature was not there. From that time the Frankenstein’s life changed dramatically. After that accident his best friend Henry Clerval arrived to visit him and took him back to the home. His young brother William was killed and his sister Justine Moritz was suited to be guilty from that crime. Frankenstein knew that she was not murderer; he know who was it, but he did not have enough power and courage to said it. He was afraid that people would find out what he created. He felt he should protect his family from the Creature. Frankenstein was depressed and ill. He wanted to find the Creature and revenge William’s and Justin’s death. He wanted to correct his mistake and kill the Creature. Once Frankenstein went to the trip and in the mountains a he met the Creature after long time. The Creature told him about his life. About how he was happy when he knew only feelings such hunger, thirst, cold and warm. Then he was confronted with people’s fear. He helped to safe child from the river and his reward was shot by child’s father. The Creature started to think about pleasure from saving the life, about pleasure from love and about pain of loneliness. Then Creature observed one family for a long time and learned to speak and started to think about it existence. Creature did not... ...in and the Creature when the creature said, “ I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned and hated by all mankind? You, my creator, would tear me to pieces, and triumph; remember that, and tell me why I should pity man more than he pities me? Shall I respect man when he contemns me?'; The Creatures desire to be affiliated with a men was very strong, but was refused mostly because of body-shape. We can see the same principle in the society. One example could be racism. Other idea is how strong individual’s desire can be. Frankenstein did not thing about others, about consequences, while he was fulfilling his own desire. Should the person put at risk a group of people in order to fulfil the desire? Is personal pleasure more than group’s pain? While reading this book these questions came to my mind. Even though the story is about irresponsible behavior of individual, I still think that and individual should do what wants. But he/she should be responsible for the act and not to harm others. The story also strengthens my opinion that we do not have right to judge person before we analyze him/her. Prejudges could cause big evil in the society.

The Power of the Media to Influence Public Opinion Essay -- Media and

Police officers are an integral part of our society, they exist to establish and maintain stability and safety for the citizens which are in their jurisdiction. However, that great responsibility does not come without a downside, when people are given power there will always be someone who will abuse it. Our law enforcement staff is no exception to this rule; in 2010 there were 4,861 reports of police misconduct in the United States (NPMSRP). Police misconduct can mean anything from fraud or theft, to sexual assault or the use of excessive force. These are all fairly serious allegations and for many officers these are career ruining. Notwithstanding, there are also many police officers, like the police officers responsible for the famous Rodney King case, who merely get a slap on the wrist for the crimes which they have committed - that is until the media took hold of the case. The media was a very large part of not only the Rodney King case, but also many other cases throughout his tory. In this paper I will demonstrate several famous cases of police brutality throughout the globe and the influence of both the media and the new emerging forms of social media on both the process and the eventual outcome of said cases. Tiananmen Square One of the most famous cases of police brutality in history was easily the events which occurred during the Tiananmen Square protests in the spring of 1989 . This event was started by a group of students who wished to incite a sort of â€Å"Cultural Revolution† (Zhao). These peaceful protests included many events of anâ€Å"American† sort such as rock concerts and managed to unite much of the nation after the death of Hu Yaobang. (Pan 1) They came from the walled compounds of the Communist Party elite an... ...rned-from-rodney-king>. Pan, Philip P. Out of Mao's Shadow: The Struggle for the Soul of a New China. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008. Print. Su, Yang. "Uptodate." Uptodate. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. . United States. National Security Agency. Secretary. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2015. . Wilson, Stan. "Riot Anniversary Tour Surveys Progress and Economic Challenges in Los Angeles." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 20 Feb. 2015. . Zhao, Ziyang (2009). "The origins of the 1989 Student Movement". Prisoner of the State: The Secret Journal of Premier Zhao Ziyang. Simon & Schuster. Print.

Media And Baseball :: essays research papers

Media affects everyone and everything; There is no escape. Media is everywhere and surrounds everything. Henry Jenkins and Marshall McLuhan have differing points of view as to what the meaning of media is. They both, however, have their particular ponits which they describe well. Jenkin's talks about the different types of cultures that exist, focusing on popular culture, in his essay, "What Everyone Should Know About Popular Culture." Mcluhan talks about the concepts of Narcicism and the "Global Village." Both Jenkin's and McLuhan's ideas can be focused on a particular thing, such as Baseball. That can be further broken down and analyzed at the team level. The Los Angeles Dodgers have most recently been the center of attention due to the top media coverage of the team. The team does, however, have a great history. They were originally known as the Brooklyn dodgers until they made a move to Los Angeles in 1958. They then became the Los Angeles Dodgers and their owner became Walter O'Malley. He was the owner and president for the next twenty years. After that, he passed the team down to his son Peter. This is a great example of Jenkin's definition of Folk Culture. A very important item was passed down from generation to generation of O'Malleys, eventhough the item was quite massive. Throughout the years, however, the Dodgers were much a part of popular culture. Baseball was known as "America's Favorite Past-time," and still is. The tradition that the O'Malley family had with the Dodgers lasted until 1998, when a big corporation, the FOX group owned by Rupert Murdoch, took over the team. This was a time of chan! ge, but some could argue was for the best. Being owned by the FOX group means there is more media exposure for the team. Now that the team is owned by Rupert Murdoch, McLuhan's ideas about media can be implemented. McLuhan's concept of narcicism can clearly be seen with the transition of the Dodgers from family-owned to corporation-owned. The availability of large funds to acquire key players makes the Dodgers seem narcicistic. People can think that they love themselves so much, that they will do anything to win. Most recently, Kevin Brown, one of the league's top pitchers was signed to a 105 million dollar contract for 7 years. This is the biggest contract in baseball history. This and other aquisitions was supposed to lead the Dodgers to excellence this year. Unfortunately for Dodgers fans, this did not happen. The team is 20 games out of first place with no chance of making post season play. All that can be done is look back and start thinking about next season.

William Faulkner’s “Barn Burning” & It’s Socio-Economic Levels

Johany Hernandez Professor Gray ENC 1102 October 12, 2011 Life’s Own Food Chain William Faulkner’s â€Å"Barn Burning† depicts socio-economic levels of the post Civil War rural South. Social class and economic worth is a major theme throughout the story. It displays a hierarchy of different financial level that is used to portray different socio-economic standpoints among groups. At the very bottom of the social structure are Sarty and his family. On the following level, there is the de Spain’s Negro servant. Afterwards, is Mr. Harris. At the top of the ladder are Major de Spain and his wife, Lula de Spain. All of these characters represent the differences among the socio-economic groups, and how they intertwine with each other in the community. At the bottom of the rank are Sarty and his family. They are farmers who work on others’ plantations because they cannot afford to have their own. They are definitely an uneducated group of individuals. This can be seen when Sarty is speaking: ‘He won’t git no ten bushels neither. He won’t git one. ’ Another good example would be their clothing. Sarty’s sisters are â€Å"†¦in a flutter of cheap ribbons. The family’s clothes consist of â€Å"an incredible expanse of pale clothes and a flutter of tawdry ribbons. † Moreover, Abner Snopes is depicted as someone who does not desire change, even for the betterment of his family. The father walks â€Å"stiffly from where a Confederate provost’s man’s musket ball had taken him in the heel on a stolen horse thirty years ago. â₠¬  He also seems to wear the same black coat constantly. Above Sarty in the hierarchy structure is the de Spain’s servant. The Negro is being described as â€Å"†¦an old man with neat grizzled hair, in a linen jacket. His living in the de Spain’s mansion shows that he is of higher status than the Snopes family. He lives very comfortably in the manor. The fact that he is wearing a linen jacket illustrates that he is exceptionally well taken care of. Though still a servant, he is presumably higher in the hierarchy of the social ladder. The servant is still very well underneath the hierarchy because he is uneducated. He speaks similarly to the Snopes. An instance is: ‘Wipe yo foots, white man, fo you come in here. Major ain’t home nohow. ’ The next character, who is placed above the servant, is Mr. Harris. Though not much is said about who he is, the story portrays him as a landowner. The Snopes’ worked on his farm for a short-term period, which eventually ended in his barn burning. With the bit of information on Mr. Harris, it can be said that he is almost certainly above middle-class. Mr. Harris says ‘The next time I put the hog in my pen. When he came to get it I gave him enough wire to patch up his pen. ’ Examples are that he owns a farm, and a cornfield. Also, that he is able to employ Mr. Snopes and his family as tenant farmers to work on his land. At the top of the hierarchy is a very rich man, Major de Spain and his wife, Lula de Spain. It is very apparent that they are more than wealthy by the description of the home’s surroundings. â€Å"†¦the grove of oak trees and cedars and the other flowering trees and shrubs where the house would be, though not the house yet. They walked beside a fence massed with honeysuckle and Cherokee roses and came to a gate swinging open to between two brick pillars†¦ he saw the house†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Also, the home itself was grand and white. Sarty thinks ‘Hit’s big as a courthouse. ’ Inside the house, even Sarty is flabbergasted by how beautiful it is. The narrator describes it as â€Å"†¦deluged as though by a warm wave by a suave turn of carpeted stair and a pendant glitter of chandeliers and a mute gleam of gold frames†¦Ã¢â‚¬  A very important example of social reign is that Mr. and Mrs. De Spain speak grammatically correct. This alone shows more class as opposed to Sarty and the servant. Throughout the story, the socio-economic classes clash against one another because of social troubles, or economic harms. Sarty and his family, who portrays the lowest of the low show how their family live day by day without reassurance of the future. The servant–clean cut and more well-mannered than the Snopes’, serves the de Spains’, and ultimately somewhat bathes a bit in their riches. Mr. Harris, a minor character, yet the obvious next personality in the hierarchy, is a stable, above middle-class man who though does not own a mansion, is very well off. This now leaves Mr. and Mrs. De Spain, the ones who are not only rich, but exceed the social class norms among the other characters. They are at the top of the food chain—rich, intelligent and very powerful. The lives of these characters help understand the inner-workings of society and its inhabitants.