Fololio Mulagia Essay Example for Free

Fololio Mulagia Essay In May of 2011 a Samoan schoolteacher by the name of Folole Muliaga was sent home from a New Zealand hospital suffering from a terminal illness called cardiomyopathy. Because, doctors believed she did not have much longer to live she was sent home with two oxygen tanks to help aid her with her illness. McNaughton (2006) states that on May 29 a contractor for Vircom EMS was sent by Mercury Energy to the Muliaga’s home to disconnect the electricity supply. Mrs. Muliaga pleaded with the contractor to keep the electricity because of her health condition but he disagreed. A few short hours later Mrs.  Muliaga would perish. Prior to the Muliaga’s electricity being disconnected, the family had an outstanding balance of $168. 00, and could not afford to pay the bill. The case of Folole Muliaga would later be broadcast around the world capturing the attention of many government officials. This paper will cover many aspects including but not limited to: the consequences and outcomes of the scenario, the illegal and unethical aspects of the Mercury Company, was the role of the coroner and police department justifiable, and lastly, what reforms and guidelines were put in place as a result of the devastating tragedy? Evaluate Ethical Behavior: The Historical Case of Folole Muliaga Folole Muliaga, a 44 year old terminally ill mother of four suffering from cardiomyopathy perished after not being able to pay a $168. 00 electricity bill. As a result of Mrs. Muliaga sickness she was unable to continue her teaching career which brought in the majority of the household income. Johnston (2007) states that Mercury Energy was unaware that disconnecting power to a South Auckland home could have potentially life-threatening consequences. The resulted consequence was too harsh; to disconnect the electricity given that Mrs. Muliaga was just released from the hospital days earlier. The major price Mrs. Muliaga paid was dying 3 hours after the electricity was disconnected from her home. The family of Mrs. Muliaga would later dispute that the bill was not overdue, and that it was actually due days later. Bennett (2007) states that Folole’s husband actually made a partial payment on May 17 and would make another payment a few days later. The Mercury Energy contractor who disconnected the power says he was unaware that Mrs. Muliaga depended on oxygen tanks to live. What’s disturbing is that the Muliaga family states that when the ontractor arrived, Mrs. Muliaga invites him in and thourgly explains to him her health circumstances. She begins to plead with him not to disconnect the electricity, but he is not being attentive to her needs. He states he is simply doing his job, and that she must contact Mercury Energy to have the electricity restored. Although health professionals who treated the victim said her health problems had tremendously worsened over the past few months, does not make it morally nor ethically factual for the company to not hear the concerns of its customers. After the incident went ational the general manager for Mercury Energy stated that he was sure the company was not at fault for Mrs. Muliaga’s death. Cleve (2007) He contended: I’m confident that the processes we have put, the communications we had with the customer, were very clear about the circumstances that would happen. The general manager’s arrogance toward Muliaga’s death clearly shows his lack of concern and unethical behavior. His thoughts are that the company done nothing immorally or illegally wrong. In the case of Folole Muliaga there was almost a trial by media, pressuring Mercury to change how they conduct business with customers who ave severe medical conditions. A company’s culture is the biggest element of how it handles difficult situations. Companies no matter how large or small should have a value statement that aids them on what is considered ethical behavior. The actions of Mercury Energy were illegal in the eyes of many consumers and shareholders around the world. It’s very bothersome and also reality that individuals who occupy senior level managenet roles does not uphold the standards and intergrity when it comes to satisfying the needs of customers. Meredith (2007) says the behavior of Mercury Energy top xecutives serves to do no more than confirm just about every negative stereotype there is about impersonal, arrogant, and greedy corporates. What makes Folole’s story so alarming is that Mercury Energy is a state owned enterprise, which means the taxpayers solely, owns the company. Research states that Jones (1991) a moral issue is present when a person’s actions, when freely performed, may harm or benefit others. It’s imperative to know that many judgments are moral decisions because they have a moral component, such as the case of Folole Muliaga. The actions that took place in Mrs. Muliaga’s home was horribly illegal and unethical, because the situation was not investigated thourghly. If the contractor would have taken five minutes to contact someone about Mrs. Muliaga’s severe health condition her life probably could have been prolonged. The contractor’s irrational behavior to further assist the family is what makes this situation so demoralizing. A few weeks after Folole’s Muliaga’s death, Police announced that there was no evidence that did not point to Mercury Energy nor the contractor’s that they were at fault for Mrs. Muliaga’s death. After Folole’s death the family expressed that the Police department showed lack of â€Å"Cultural Awareness† and had â€Å"institutionalized racism†. Bridgeman (2010) Coroner Gordon Matenga concluded that Mrs. Muliaga died of natural causes but, an arrhythmia caused by morbid obesity and that the cessation of oxygen therapy and stress arising from the fact of the disconnection (as opposed to the way in which the power was disconnected) have contributed to her death. To agree with the coroner’s report individuals would really have to reexamine Folole’s case. Certainly, the victim had health issues that contributed to her death. But, the question we must ask ourselves is that if Mrs. Muliaga’s electricity was never turned off would she have still perished a few hours later. Many of us would answer the question by saying no, she would still be alive. In many of our thoughts and private belief’s we would say that Mercury Energy is responsible for her death. Summary: The Folole’s Muliaga’s story should have been an eye opener for all major corporations. Many companies today do not follow Corporate Social Responsibility. Many top managers and executives are simply in the business to make a large profit off of its shareholders and onsumers. Organizations have to reexamine the culture, morals, and values of why they are in business. Meredith (2007) In the case of Mercury Energy, those needs should have been understood to include the cultural and economic issues of a Samoan family struggling to make a go of their lives in New Zealand and to have been deserving of care and respect in addressing what turned out to be the life threatening issue of the discontinuation of their electricity supply. A variety of theoretical perspectives have been established to support researchers and most mportantly managers on social issues. These concepts would help organizations to understand the importance of having values and morals when it comes to dealing with the public. The social life cycle theory was used to analyze the Mercury Energy case. Ackerman (1975) found that, in general, the responsiveness of business organizations to social issues progresses through a three-phase trajectory; policy, learning, and commitment. Most of us who are familiar with the Muliaga case would say that the company was in refutation about the Muliaga issue.

Elian Gonzalez :: Free Essay Writer

Elian Gonzalez Is it possible for a six-year-old boy to successfully seek asylum in the United Sates against his father’s wishes? This is the main point of exploration in the April 21, 2000 article (off the wire) that appeared in The Plain Dealer. The article relates, â€Å"to be granted asylum, people must show that they were persecuted or had a legitimate fear of persecution in their home country because of race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group or political opinions.† According to the article, the case has not reached a decision because of the debate over whether Elian Gonzalez has the right to seek asylum. For the time being, he is allowed to remain with his Miami relatives until the matter is resolved. There may be several levels of appeals and years of debate if the case is sent to an asylum hearing. Janet Reno, Attorney General, Joe Lockhart, White House Spokesperson and Richard D. Freer, a professor at the Emory University School of Law in Atlanta was interviewed and quoted as sources regarding the possible outcome of the case. Lockhart and Freer had seemingly opposing views. Lockhart believe that the proper legal view is the view if Elian’s father. Freer thinks the debate should result in a longer stay in Miami for Elian. Reno asserts despite all of the predicted outcomes that there is no way to confidently determine what is to happen. They key fact in the article is that federal law allows any alien resident in the United States to seek asylum and that the courts must make a decision after hearing arguments even if it is the arguments of a child Elian’s age. An example of a 1985 case where a 12-year-old Soviet child sought asylum against his parents’ wishes is presented. But the child was considered on the â€Å"lower end† of maturity in deciding his rights separate from his parents. An AP photograph accompanied the article as it appeared in the Plain dealer but the content is unknown. Another article on the same topic appeared in the Weekly Standard magazine on April 24,2000. Author, Tucker Carlson relates a two-sided protest regarding the fate of Elian Gonzalez. Among the public and private protesters lies entertainers Gloria Estefan and Andy Garcia who are both of Cuban origin. Both feel that Elian should be allowed to stay in the United States All of the deep seated emotion is over the fact that Janet Reno decided on April 13, 200 that the Miami relatives had until 2:00 p.

Carmen Rezendes’s Spring Break: Is This a True Story?

Is this a true story? The passage I read called â€Å"Spring Break† by Carmen Resends states a lot of dramatic events in the story in detail. This could be a true story because of how detailed and on point the author is when she describes her experience. Resends tells the exact date of when the experience happened, â€Å"March 21, 2007† she stated. She is pretty much telling the reader that she will never forget this date cause of the events that happened In the canyon.When the she knew she was not on the correct trail anymore I could only Imagine what she felt like because that feeling when you know you messed up Is one of the worst feelings In the world. When your staring death In the face, I feel Like you need to find some way to survive as any means necessary. Resends stated in the ninth paragraph that if she kept shivering she knew she was going to be okay even though hypothermia plays a big factor. I love how she did not give up on herself. When you set your mind to omitting, in this case which is â€Å"survive† and reach the road.Once that registers in your mind you will be fine and she was. Nominal 2 In conclusion, people could look at her experience as a fiction or real. I feel like It Is real because of how detailed she is making the canyon and all the events sound Like she was actually there even If there Is a chance she was not. I believe she was because she out on exact date and how she handled herself during the experience. Carmen Responder's Spring Break: Is This a True Story? By salvageable cause of the events that happened in the canyon.When the she knew she was not on the correct trail anymore I could only imagine what she felt like because that feeling when you know you messed up is one of the worst feelings in the world. When your staring death in the face, I feel like you need to find some way to In conclusion, people could look at her experience as a fiction or real. I feel like it is real because of how detailed she i s making the canyon and all the events sound like she was actually there even if there is a chance she was not. I believe she was

Australias legal system - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 9 Words: 2774 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Research paper Tags: Australia Essay Did you like this example? Business Law Assignment 1. Australiaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s legal system is based on the English legal system.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  To what extend is this statement correct? Discuss. It is widely known that Australia continent has been settled by Great Britain from the late 18th century. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Australias legal system" essay for you Create order However, the English legislation system is the foundation of Australia law that is still needed to be discussed before reaching any conclusions. Following are the related factors which clarify this issue. Firstly, it is necessary to take a look back to the Australia historical background to understand its law development procedure through the time. According to Australiaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s history the first inhabitants may have been ancestors of modern Indigenous Australians. After this, to the year of 1770, James Cook captain found and gradually formed Australia. As a rule of life, there are people, there are regulations. At the period of beginning, it is easy to comprehend that Britain would apply their law to Australia which is considered as settled colony of England if there was some judgement events happened. This aspect is clearly revealed via the case of Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1; 107 ALR 1. In this situation, Eddie Mabo and others argued that they had the r ight to possess the land in the islands as the way of customary title since the time immemorial. However, the decision of this case basing on the English law was that the even though Australia legal system recognised the native title which had not been accepted before, modern Australia was still much more practically tremendous[1]. Through this case we can see that the official introduction of English law to Australia and the progression in its law by this time. In addition to this, this is supported by Blackstone, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“English law would become the law of a country outside England either upon first settlement by English colonists of a conquered or ceded country.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Therefore, the English law would be the good indicator for Britain to execute in their situations in this infant colony at that time. Time by time, English law has been well established and settled in deciding legislation of this territory. Secondly, examining of the development of law in Austral ia also helps to track back its origin. On the date of their own original settlement, in each state of Australia the English law was applied as the foundation law as a settled colonies or infant colonies. Nevertheless, the time after first settlement it was blurry that should New South Wales have been treated as the settled colony because in early time this state had Governor already exercised its power over the inhabitants. Therefore, it caused the argument on this issue. Finally in 1823, the New South Wales Act was passed by the United Kingdom Government. This Act enables the New South Walesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Government fully right to pass the laws provided that it was not against with Britain legal system. Then it was witnessed the first Australian Courts Act in 1828 and its application on New South Wales and Van Diemenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Land[2]. All the cases laws was assured to reflect the English case law but this did not mean that all English statue passed after this date a utomatically considering as Australian law, except for it deliberately expressed to do so. Anyways, it still reflects that Australian law has been gradually developed from the English legal system. Finally, seeking how the independent Australian Act and the Constitution have formed clearly clarifies the aspect of the Australian legislation is heritage from the English law. To the year of 1986 United Kingdom Parliament officially passed the Australian Act as per required by Commonwealth and state parliament. From this Act, United Kingdom parliament no longer has power on Commonwealth and Commonwealth of Australia is seen as a sovereign, independent and federal nation[3]. This confirms that Australian law system is separated from the English law. However, again it can clearly see that this Act just effects till the acceptance of the UK Parliament. All above factors are sufficient enough to prove the legal institutions and traditions of Australian law are mono-cultural in charact er, reflecting its English origins. Discuss the importance of the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947) KB 130. The case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd is a case of seal lease contract made on September 24, 1937. In this case, Central London Property Trust Ltd (CLP) was the plaintiffs and the defendants was High Trees House Ltd. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" a subsidiary of the CLP, a tenancy of a block of flats with the lease term of 99 years from the time of 29th September, 1937. Two sides agreed the ground rent of 2,500l. per annum. The block of flat was under new condition but it could not be fully occupied since the beginning of the war, people moved away from London because of booming. Under this special situation, it is obviously that the lease could not be paid enough to gain the profit. Therefore, the directors of two companies decided to make a writing arrangement under the war condition prevailing. On January 3, 1940, the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants to confirm the ground rent should be reduced as from the commencement of the lease to 1,250l./annual, and on April 2, 1940, a confirmatory resolution was officially effected. From the time of adjusted arrangement, the defendants started paying the half reduced rent to the beginning of 1945 when the block were fully rent and thereafter. On the other side, in September 1945, the plaintiff found out the rent should have been back its fully normal amount of 2500l. Therefore, he requested the defendants to pay the full rate as first agreement. And the amount of 625l., being the amount represented by the difference between rent at the rate of 2,500l. and 1,250l. per annum for the quarters ending September 29, and December 25, 1945 was required to recover by the defendants. In response of the defendant side, they pleaded that the letter of January 3rd 1940 clearly constituted that the rent should be 1250l. and this meant to the whole lease term. On the other side, the contract was under seal. Therefore, it could not be changed by a parol agreement or an agreement in writing not under seal. But the court of equity allows the variation by a simple contract of a contract under seal by preventing the party who has agreed from suing under the deed (Berry v. Berry [FN5], Swift said) And the defendants rely on the doctrine of estoppel, as Denning Jheld estoppel to be, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“a promise was made which was intended to create legal relations and which, to the knowledge of the person making the promise, was going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made and which was in fact so acted onà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . In fact, the reduced rent was enable the defendants run their business, the defendants relied on the promise. The plaintiffs were made a gratuitous promise. As the result, the plaintiffs were estopped from claiming any rent beyond 1,260l. per annum for the whole period of the lease. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs required for the full amount from the time the full rent is payable, not suing for the full rent back dated to 1940. The case should be applied properly. And the Promissory Estoppel is known as the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“doctrine of fairnessà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . It was given judgment for the plaintiff company for the amount claimed.[4] The case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947) KB 130 plays a paramount role in creating the doctrine ofpromissory estoppel. In theHigh Treescase Lord Denning commented,that such an agreement should now be enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel differs from common law because it has less strict requirements and it may arise from promise of future conduct or intention. It can be used both in as a shield to retrieve past damage or as a sword for future damage. Promissory Estoppel is an extension doctrine to à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"stopà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ person from retrieving his right that he already promise to waive or let go, or a failure to make a true representation or failure to tell the other party when the changes happen that influence his ability to fulfill his promise fully or partially. Promissory Estoppel is known as a doctrine concerned with equity which has help for the missed factors in contract law. It is used as an extension of conventional contract law where consideration is a prominent and to assure justice for the weaker party from the exploitation of the stronger part by the limitation of law or by using loop holes in law. The case of High Trees opens a new road to the rule in Pinnels casethat à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Payment of a lesser sum on the due day for payment is no satisfaction of the whole obligation.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Despite it is not sure all House of Lordsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ decisions would have the same decision as this case, but definitely Denning blew the new wind into law of England and Wales. By changing the way estoppels is viewed by English law, Lord Denning reaffirmed doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. The High Tress case acted as a vessel in which the doctrine of promissory estoppel was reinstated, in the English and Australian legal systems. 3. Issue Are the Club and Peter liable to John in negligence? Relevant Law/Rules As the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), section 9, 10, 13 and 18 reflect the relevant principles regrading to duty of care. In particular, Section 9 clearly states the general principles concerning to this issue. They consist of the statue that a person does not breach a duty to take precautions against a risk or harm that they should have them in mind if the risk was not foreseeable and significant; in the circumstances, reasonable person in the position of the person would not have taken the same standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised. Then how to identify whether a reasonable in the position of the person would have taken precautions, the following factors should be examined: the probability that harm would occur if cares were not taken; the likely seriousness of the harm; the burden of taking precautions and the social utility of the activities that causes harm. T hese principles have been originated from the Common Law. It can be taken the modern doctrine in the Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) as a relevant case. This case developed determination of a duty of care. In that case, a duty of care could exist in any situation as long as loss, damage or injury to one party was reasonably foreseeable and the relationship between those parties sufficiently close or other specifically defined to establish requisite one to take care not to put the other at risk[5]. And other cases such as Polland v Trude (2009) 2 Qd R 248 is clearly relevant in determining if the required standard of care has been met or the duty of care has been breached. Other principle in Section 10 states a proceeding relating to liability for breach of duty: the burden of taking precautions to avoid a risk of harm includes the burden of taking precautions to avoid similar risks of harm; the fact that a risk of harm could have been avoided by doing something in a dif ferent way to avoid the risk does not mean that entity is necessarily liable; and the subsequent action after harm has been suffered does not necessarily mean that the entity will be liable just because they did not take that precautions before the harm was suffered. An obvious risk is identified as sector 13 as following : an obvious risk to a person who suffers harm is a risk that, in the circumstances, would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the position of that person; obvious risks include risks that are patent or a matter of common knowledge; a risk of something occurring can be an obvious risk even though it has a low probability of occurring; a risk can be an obvious risk even if the risk (or a condition or circumstance that gives rise to the risk) is not prominent, conspicuous or physically observable; to remove any doubt, it is declared that a risk from a thing, including a living thing, is not an obvious risk if the risk is created because of a failure on the part of a person to properly operate, maintain, replace, prepare or care for the thing, unless the failure itself is an obvious risk. Section 18 states that dangerous recreational activity means an activity engaged in for enjoyment, relaxation or leisure that involves a significant degree of risk of physical harm to a person. Application First of all, it is reasonably foreseeable and significant that the Club did not take precaution against a risk or harm like stopping golf ball from landing on the side of the fairway which led to the harm to John. As a reasonable action, the Club should have put the protective net to avoid the ball possibly hit to the customer waiting in the tree line to the side of the fairway while the other are playing. The possibility of ball striking to the person to the side of the fairway is obvious. The Club has the duty to take care not to put their customers at risk. This principle was derived from the case Donoghue v Stevensonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ s neighbor test. However, should the Club build a netting fence to possibly eliminate the hazard as a reasonable person would have taken precautions. The duty of changing the rules or using different kind of protective structure may reduce the possibility of players being injured. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to see that the burden of taking these precautions is quite big, especially the large space like in the golf field. It is burdensome for the Club to build up a protective system around the tree line to the side of the fairway. Would a reasonable person have taken the precautions? A golf club is considered as a high social utility which provide enjoyment, relaxation or leisure for society. However, the seriousness if someone gets struck is quite considerable. Nonetheless, although there was a risk that the balls would be hit out of the playing ground, but the possibility of risk occurring is so minimal. It is probably possible to adopt preventative measures that will avo id any but the most outrageously unexpected injuries occurring to any person, the law does not demand that level of precautions. In any circumstances, a reasonable would not think it is necessary to take the precautions. Besides, according to section 10, the burden of taking similar precautions like establishment of preventative measures is quite impossible and taking those precautions is not necessary. If the club took any precautions after John was hit to stop other from being hit would not necessarily mean that they will be liable. The risk of harm here was the risk that one player could be struck and injured by a ball hit by another player. In terms of section 13 that was an obvious risk. And as section 18 states that a significant degree of risk of physical harm to a person as a dangerous recreational activity should be involved. Therefore, John should aware of it and have to undertaken it voluntarily. On the other side, according to section 13, it is not an obvious ri sk if the risk is created because of a failure on the part of a person to properly operate, maintain, replace, prepare or care for the thing, unless the failure itself is an obvious risk. Therefore, Peterà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s mis-hit his ball which flew to John and caused Johnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s injuries is considered is not a significant risk. Peter would not take a duty of care in this case when it was not reasonable to foresee this risk. A reasonable in the position of the person would have taken precautions as Peter just could called out à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“ watch out Johnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  as standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised. Conclusion The Club and Peter were not liable in negligence in causing the risk of harm of player in the tree line to the side of the fairway being hit by a golf ball. Student Name: TRANG Thi Xuan Mai Student ID: 12878519 Page 1 [1] LexisNexis Butterworths. (2011). Understanding Business Law. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Introduction of English law to Australiaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . Page 6-7 [2] LexisNexis Butterworths. (2011). Understanding Business Law. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Development of law in Australiaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . Page 12-13 [3] LexisNexis Butterworths. (2011). Understanding Business Law. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The Constitutionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . Page 13 [4] Incorporated Council of Law Reporting For England Wales (1947) K.B. 130. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Central London Property Trust Limited v. High Trees House Limitedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . Visited on 12.01 from https://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/product/AU/files/720502512/contract_p2_central_v_high.pdf [5] LexisNexis Butterworths. (2011). Understanding Business Law. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“ The duty of careà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . Page 740