The Law Commissions review of the law of intention

The Law Commissions review of the law of intention 'The Law Commission's review of the law of intention confirms the viewthat the English law of intention for murder is based upon an understanding that lacks in two opposite ways. First, as regards direct intention, the law is morally under-inclusive in that it places too much moral weight on a psychological conception of the required mental state. It therefore fails to recognise properly the issue and significance of the concept of 'indiscriminate malice'. Secondly, as regards direct and indirect intention, the law is morally over-inclusive, failing to differentiate culpable and non-culpable acts.'(Norrie, 2006) Critically discuss the above statement with reference to the doctrine of intention in relation to the crime of murder and the Law Commission's Consultation Paper Homicide (No.177, 2005). Before we commence our discussion, let us first be quite clear on what is meant by ‘direct intention’, ‘indirect intention’ and ‘indiscriminate malice’ in the context of the above statement. Intention literally means ‘aim or purpose that guides an action[1]’. Therefore, ‘direct intention’, in the context of murder, means an act committed with the direct purpose of killing, or causing serious harm to, another. This has been one of the mens rea requirements for murder as far back as the 17th Century[2]. Clearly, this precludes an intention to achieve another criminal purpose altogether, where the actor ought reasonably to have foreseen, but did not directly intend, the death of another to be a virtually certain result of his actions, e.g. the intention of a ‘person who places a bomb on a plane for the purpose of making an insurance claim in respect of property but who foresees as a virtual certainty the death or serious injury of those who are on the plane when the bomb explodes.[3]’ This is what Norrie refers to as ‘indiscriminate malice’; ‘malice,’ in that the actor intended to perform an illegal act, and; ‘indiscriminate,’ in that the actor paid little or no regard to the virtually certain consequences of his actions, namely the death of another. It has long been recognised that the law should bring actions of indiscriminate malice within the scope of the crime of murder, but that a strict requirement of ‘direct intention’ would fail to do so; ‘direct intention is simply ‘too narrow for the purposes of criminal responsibility[4]’. Thus, the concept of cognitive ‘indirect intention’ was born, introduced into English law in the case of Nedrick[5]. Such intention does not have to be direct, but can merely involve a degree of foresight which, if possessed, should warrant a conviction of murder rather than manslaughter, a crime which denotes a too low a degree of criminal and moral culpability for actions where the death of another is virtually an incidental certainty. This doctrine, in its current form, was laid down by Lord Lane CJ Nedrick[6] in 1986, and modified by Lord Steyn in Woollin[7]: â€Å"Where the charge is murder and in the rare case where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions and the defendant appreciated that such was the case.[8]† Some commentators have argued, as Norrie does at the top of this paper, that such an extension has gone too far; whilst indiscriminate malice now clearly comes within the scope of this extended intention requirement for murder, which is a good thing, other actions are now also included under the crime of murder, crime which, due to the lack of criminal and moral culpability involved, would be more fairly labeled as manslaughter. An example of such an action being so unfairly labeled was provided by Lord Goff in the Nathan Committee Report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment [9]: â€Å"A house is on fire. A father is trapped in the attic floor with his two little girls. He comes to the conclusion that unless they jump they will all be burned alive. But he also realises that if they jump they are all [virtually certain] to suffer serious personal harm. The children are too frightened to jump and so in an attempt to save their lives he throws one out of the window to the crowd waiting below and he jumps with the other one in his arms. All are seriously injured, and the little girl he threw out of the window dies of her injuries.† The Law Commission, in citing and analyzing this example, came to the conclusion that the father in this case should not be labeled a murderer. Under the concept of ‘indirect intention’ however, the father should be guilty of this second-degree crime. As Norrie notes[10], the Law Commission were forced to conclude that ‘indirect intention’, by focusing on the knowledge of the father rather than the wishes behind his actions, was morally over-inclusive, failing to differentiate correctly between culpable and non-culpable acts, i.e. between actions of indiscriminate malice, such as the insurance fraudster who blows up the plane with no regard to the life of those on that plane, and actions involving no malice, but which are indiscriminate in their effects, such as the actio ns of the desperate father in Lord Goff’s example above. In this paper I shall address these concerns in detail, concluding that a cognitive approach to intention may simply be unsuitable for the crime of murder; it fails to adequately demark the boundaries of culpability between this crime and that of manslaughter. I shall then examine the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper Homicide (No.177, 2005), and shall critically discuss their approach to these problems, concluding with an assessment of how successful these reform proposals would be in their aim of differentiating correctly between culpable and non-culpable acts, if implemented. As we have already seen from the examples discussed above, Norrie is quite right in his assertions; the requirement of direct intention is too focussed on the specific mental state of the actor with the effect that the charge of murder would be precluded for anyone other than an offender who either directly intended to kill his victim, or at least intended to cause that victim serious harm from which death was a reasonably foreseeable result. Likewise, the extension of this requirement to include indirect intention, whilst at least serving to bring crimes of indiscriminate malice under the scope of ‘murder’, also serves to bring other such actions under this label, actions which should only be considered manslaughter, in light of the lower degree of criminal culpability possessed by their perpetrators. In other words, it is not always fair to equate foresight of a virtually certain result with intention. Let us now look at the reforms to the doctrine of direct intention, which have been proposed by the Law Commission in their Report on Homicide[11], and assess to what extent these reform might actually serve to correct the current inadequacies: In this Report, the Law Commission make two different reform proposals; the first of these is to create a statutory definition of intention which avoids the problems of indirect intention being construed too widely by a jury; the second is to codify the existing common law doctrine of indirect intention, but to modify it so that the current problems of indirect intention can be avoided. Both of these proposals are therefore designed to rectify the problem of indirect intention being construed too widely, whilst at the same time allowing this doctrine to continue its prosecution of indiscriminate malice as murder where appropriate. The rationale behind both of these alternative proposals is to rectify the distinction which can, in exceptional cases, exist between intention, in its natural form, and intention implied by reasonable foreseeability/ virtual certainty. They reform proposals recognise that it is possible for an offender to have not intended a particular outcome, even though he or she may have realised that such an outcome was a virtually certain consequence of their actions. This is commonly known as the ‘Woolin[12]’ problem. Under the first proposal, the Commission have state that ‘It is crucial that a statutory definition of intention should not cause injustice, or absurdity, by deeming certain conduct to be intended when the circumstances show it to be otherwise[13]’. Thus, under this first proposal, the Commission propose to insert a proviso into a statutory definition of intention, i.e. ‘A person is not to be deemed to have intended any result, which it was his or her specific purpose to avoid.[14]’ This should not be seen as reinserting a motive assessment into that of intention, but rather to provide a means by which a jury will not be forced to convict someone of murder, in an exceptional case where that offender specifically did not intend to cause death even though he knew it would almost certainly result from his actions. Under the second proposal, the Commission suggest a codification of the current doctrine of intention, modified to take account of those exceptional cases where it would be unfair to equate foresight of a virtually certain result with intention, might be as follows. Such a formulation might read as follows: â€Å"(1) A person is to be regarded as acting intentionally with respect to a result when he or she acts in order to bring it about. (2) In the rare case where the simple direction in clause (1) is not enough, the jury should be directed that: they are not entitled to find the necessary intention with regard to a result unless they are sure that the result was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case. (3) In any case where the defendant’s chance of success in his or her purpose of causing some other result is relevant, the direction in clause (2) may be expanded by the addition of the following phrase at the end of the clause (2) direction: or that it would be if he or she were to succeed in his or her purpose of causing some other result, and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.[15]† This would have the effect of maintaining the current law in relation to virtual certainty, which as Lord Steyn pointed out in Woolin, â€Å"has [over a period of 12 years since Nedrick] apparently caused no practical difficulties,[16]’ whilst at the same time, limiting the doctrine of indirect intention so as to exclude those situations where an offender might have seen death as being virtually certain, but where he specifically tried to avoid it. This proposal purports to do this by providing the jury with more specific guidelines as to when they are entitled to infer indirect intention. Both of these reform proposals are encouraging; it would seem that the Law Commission is heading in the right direction at last. The first proposal specifically precludes the Woolin problem with the insertion of a provision which, although purportedly reintroducing a motive element to the doctrine of intention, can actually be used to ensure that intention is not implied where it would be unfair to do so. The second is less specific, but purports to achieve the same ends by clarifying the necessary circumstances in which indirect intention should be implied. In conclusion, I would favour the first proposal for the following reason; the second proposal will only slightly modify the doctrine of indirect intention, and will only slightly limit its scope. The proviso contained in the first proposal however, is, as yet, unlimited in its scope, and as such, can be used by a jury to greater effect. This may have the result of reverse injustice, i.e. offenders who should morally be guilty of murder escaping this label for the lesser conviction of manslaughter, but I feel that it will so significantly decrease the chances of the reverse occurring, i.e. offenders who should only be found guilty of manslaughter being labeled as a murderers, that such a risk is justified; after all, it is more important to encourage this latter phenomenon than it is to prevent the former from occurring at all costs, especially in light of the huge sentences which are imposed on those offenders convicted for the crime of murder. Bibliography: Law Commission's Consultation Paper Homicide (No.177, 2005) Nathan Committee Report, Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment (HL paper 78-1, 1989). A Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law (4th ed 2003) A Norrie, â€Å"Subjectivism, Objectivism, and the Limits of Criminal Recklessness† (1992) 12 OJLS 45. A P Simester, â€Å"Why Distinguish Intention from Foresight?’† in A P Simester and A T H Smith, Harm and Culpability (1996) 71. Williams, G. (1955) The definition of Crime Current Legal Problems 8, 107-30 Smith, A. H. (2004) 'Criminal Law: The Future' Criminal Law Review, Dec, 971-80 1 Footnotes [1] A definition provided by the Oxford English Dictionary. [2] See Lord Coke’s classic definition involving ‘malice aforethought’. [3] Law Commission Report: Homicide [No.177; 2005] para 4.6 [4] Ibid, para 4.6 [5] 1986 (83) Cr App R 267 [6] ibid [7] [1999] 1 AC 82. [8] [1999] 1 AC 82, at 96 [9] Lord Goff in the Nathan Committee Report, Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment (HL paper 78-1, 1989). [10] In the statement at the top of this paper, A. Norrie states: 'The Law Commission's review of the law of intention confirms the viewthat †¦ indirect intention†¦ is morally over-inclusive, failing to differentiate culpable and non-culpable acts.' (Norrie 2006) [11] Report No. 177; 2005 [12] In this case, D had a grudge against a woman and had threatened to ‘burn her out’. One night he poured paraffin through her letterbox and set it alight. One of the women dies in the fire. When asked why he did it, he replied ‘to wake her up and frighten her’. Here, he did not intend to kill the woman’s but the question is therefore whether or not he saw such a result as virtually certain. [13] Ibid, para 4.42 [14] Ibid, para 4.50 [15] Report No. 177 2005 para 4.69 [16][1999] 1 AC 82. at 94

Independent Medical Examination :: essays research papers

Dear Dr.: is the authorized representative of in all of its workers’ compensation matters. The purpose of this file review is to determine whether the alleged condition of lumbar sprain is causally related to the claimant’s work activities. This claim has been allowed by the BWC for a sprain lumbar region following the claimant’s allegations that he felt back pain after slipping on ice while opening a gate at work. The claimant presented himself to St. Vincent Charity Hospital later that day complaining of sharp pain more on the right than on the left. The claimant admitted to prior back injuries and frequent chiropractic manipulations by a chiropractor during the examination, but was unsure of his previous diagnosis. The claimant stated that his back â€Å"has never been great, and I’ve always had problems with it†. On examination, Dr, Daniel Ryu found mild to moderate right paralumbar tenderness. The claimant was diagnosed with a lumbar sprain and given medications. The claimant followed up on March 9, 2005 with Dr. Ryu, reporting minimal improvement. At this examination, the claimant stated that he had a history of multi-level degenerative disk disease in the lumbar spine. Dr. Ryu requested an MR I, which was administered on March 7, 2005 by Dr. Shockley. The MRI revealed severe degenerative disc disease and mild to moderate facet disease at all levels of the lumbar spine. On March 18, 2005, the claimant returned to St. Vincent Charity Occupational Medicine, stating that he was feeling â€Å"better†, and had been participating in physical therapy. The BWC allowed the claim for a â€Å"Sprain Lumbar Region† on March 9, 2005. The employer does not believe that the claimant’s current condition is a result of a workplace incident. The claimant has a history of severe degenerative disc disease in the lumbar spine and frequent chiropractic manipulations. The employer believes that the claimant’s current complaints stem from the severe degenerative disc disease and is unrelated to the claimant’s 3/1/05 work activities.

Is Privacy In The 21st Century Possible? Essay

Privacy was once valued and protected. But now with so many new and convenient technological advancements, is privacy in the 21st century possible? To protect our privacy Congress created the Electronics Privacy Acts (ECPA) to protect us from government access to private information that is transmitted and stored on the Internet, such as emails, private photos, or corporate data. Congress has not updated the ECPA on technology since it was created, in 1986. When the ECPA was created there was no â€Å"World Wide Web†, social networking was something in the future, and nothing was stored in what we call the â€Å"cloud.† With all the technological changes in today’s society no one is protected. Privacy is defined as being free from the public eye. Yet we have so many people sharing personal information on social networking websites, and government agencies monitoring emails, and phone calls most of the time without our knowledge. There is no privacy in the 21st century, it is just a nostalgic feeling, and it is no longer practiced. Today’s privacy laws aren’t up to date with today’s technology. Things are rarely sent through the mail, and emails and text messages have replaced written communication. Online messaging and social networking was something of a novelty when lawmakers created the ECPA (Frolik, 2013). A recent article from the Dayton Daily news written by Cornelius Frolik on June 2013 he mentioned, â€Å"The Government can easily access many personal communications and other private information without sufficient probable cause†. Instead of acquiring a warrant that requires more standards and procedures. Government agencies instead obtain subpoena’s to obtain people’s emails, and telephone records (Frolik, 2013). Although, local authorities catch lots of dangerous criminals through information online like emails, photos, and social media sites like Facebook some critics still feel it is an invasion of privacy. Also as our technology advances by leaps, and bounds so does the way Government uses new high tech tools to surveillance law-abiding citizens. Though our Fourth Amendment states to protect the American people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Almost everything is done through  technology in the 21st century. This meaning that government can seize any emails that are 180 days or that has been opened without a warrant; subpoenas have become the most used investigator tool for Government agencies. The reason why is because they can be easily written inside the prosecutors office without any further review from a judge. This means there is an exception to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, if it satisfies the requirements. The question we should be asking when it comes to Government and our privacy are † Is to explain a clear understanding of the word privacy†? If the Government cannot clarify the term privacy then how can they protect our privacy? The lack of clarity makes it hard for lawmakers to create new policies that will keep our privacy out of harm (Libin, 2012). Two reasons why privacy can be considered threaten in today’s society one being the Government powers are limitless, and two being we the American people expose ourselves digitally (Libin, 2012). The people of America should come together and declare for the Government to protect our privacy rather than participate in warrantless searches (Libin, 2012). The fact that the Government can argue that the Fourth Amendment does not apply because there is no exception to privacy when it comes to prot ecting national security, then that leave the American people in times of calamity, and crisis. Laws like the ECPA is a law that the Government has an obligation to respect (Libin, 2012). The ECPA protect the privacy of the electronic communications, but when law enforcement and prosecutors have to protect and enforce laws, personal information has to be collected to build a case (Libin, 2012). The solution is more complex than simply, and right now the Government is facing difficulties figuring out the best way to protect the American people (Libin, 2012). Given all the information privacy seems to be the problem. It can be portrayed in many ways, one as it’s protecting the public from terrorism, and local crime; and two being if you are innocent, what do you have to hide? In 2014 I find that most American people store their digital lives in what we call â€Å"The Cloud† which included emails, calendar data, photos, and other sensitive information. The ECPA has become obsolete. Technology today leaves the ECPA outdated, the laws have not changed since it was originally created  in 1986. The existing privacy laws only focus on the text-based personal records, and the issues that people face today with this outdated privacy law is gathering of digital multi-media files, and the way this unauthorized data is used (Lipton, 2010). Do you consider video surveillance systems out on the street personal data? Some may say yes and some may say no. According to a case study researched by Jacqueline D. Lipton, if the face of an individual is recognizable, than it is considered personal data. Some people feel protected with the video surveillance capturing their every moment. Then on the other hand some people feel they are being scrutinized being watched by video surveillance. The U.S. has a protection for free speech and for free of a press under the First Amendment. However there is no express constitutional right to privacy (Lipton, 2012). The question that American people should rigorously examine is whether or not Congress should repeal the ECPA and creates new privacy laws to replace it (Kerr, 2014). The ECPA should be considered top priority when it comes to being reformed. If Congress were to start fresh on what changes to make on the ECPA the technologic changes would have to be particularly considered. Being that the cost of stored information has changed it also changes how law enforcements surveillance people, it threatens privacy. In 1986 this all made sense because the internet was designed at this time to only hold limited storage, and wire-tapping was a threat more than stored information (Kerr, 2014). Overall access to stored record has become the greatest privacy threat. Technology has changed enormously, now everything is stored. With everything being stored now in what we call â€Å"The Cloud† like mentioned before stored information begins to reveal the same level of details as real time surveillance or real-time access (Kerr, 2014). Stored information has become more revealing an invasive. (Kerr, 2014). References _Cohen, J. E. (2013). What is Privacy For._ Harvard Law Review Association_,_ 126_(7), 1904,29. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=5& sid=34a7b883-e7a4-45d2-aff3-a25b4e535c3e%40sessionmgr110&hid=107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=edsgbe&AN=edsgcl.333333595_ _Kerr, 0. S. (2014). The Next Generation Communications Privacy Act._ University of Pennsylvania Law Review_,_ 162_(2), 373-419. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/command/detail?vid=26&sid=34a7b883-e7a4-45d2-aff3-a25b4e535c3e%40sessionmgr110&hid=107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=aph&AN=93917886_ _Libn, N. (2012). PRIVACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY: Foreword._ Harvard Law and Policy Review_,_ 6_, 263. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=15&sid=34a7b883-e7a4-45d2-aff3-a25b4e535c3e%40sessionmgr110&hid=107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=edslex&AN=edslex2F0EC940_ _Lipton, J. D. (2010). Digitlal Multi-Media and The Limits of Privacy Law._ Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law_,_ 42_(3), 551-571. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=24&sid=34a7b883-e7a4-45d2-aff3-a25b4e535c3e%40sessionmgr110&hid=107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=bsh&AN=51909959_ _Sutanto, J., Palme, E., Chuan-Hoo, T., & Chee Wei, P. (2013). Addressing The Personalization-Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Assessment From a Field Experiment on Smartphone Users._ MIS Quarterly_,_ 37_(4), 1141-A5. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=29&sid=34a7b883-e7a4-45d2-aff3-a25b4e535c3e%40sessionmgr110&hid=107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=bsh&AN=91906295_

Finagle a Bagel Marketing Essay Example

Finagle a Bagel Marketing Essay Example Finagle a Bagel Marketing Paper Finagle a Bagel Marketing Paper A Bagel uses all the variables of the marketing mix which Include product, price, distribution and promotion to support their company that makes between 20 and 25 million dollars a year. Promotion. The promotion element of the marketing mix Is creatively organized to make customers aware of new Items Finagle A Bagel might decide to put on their menu. One way in which they have promoted their sandwiches in the past is by running directly up to cars that have stopped at an intersection and handed them Alfa of a sandwich with a coupon to come back for another. That certainly led to word-of-mouth referrals to increase their sales. The above examples are just a few elements of each part of the marketing mix that Finagle A Bagel uses. The forces that Impact Finagle A Bagel Include competitive, economic, political, legal and regulatory, technological, and coloratura forces. (Pride, 2007) Another way they keep original Is by having music for kids In some of their stores. Their hope is that kids will tell their parents that they want to go where the music is. They need to be original to keep up with their competition. Economic Force. Economic forces impact Finagle A Bagel as customers need to have a willingness to spend. They expect to be satisfied when buying their bagels or other fresh food products. Although discretionary income is used to buy basic necessities, eating out of the home could almost be considered entertainment as it is usually more expensive to eat at a restaurant as opposed to buying items at a grocery store and preparing meals at home. If customers are on a fixed budget due to employment or dillydally, the impact It has on Finagle A Bagel could be negative as customers wont be spending as much, If at all. : However, If a customer has an excess of disposable income, it could have a positive impact as sales could increase for Finagle A Bagel. Political Force. If there are legislative regulations that will affect a corporation, this could impact Finagle A Bagel if they need to hire lobbyists to communicate their needs and concerns to the elected officials. Legal and Regulatory Forces. The FTC assists businesses In complying with laws, and t evaluates new marketing methods every year. It also allocates considerable resources to curbing false advertising, misleading pricing, and deceptive packaging and labeling. (Book 2007) For Instance, If Finagle A Bagel created a bagel and advertised It as a bagel that Is guaranteed to enhance weight loss to buyers and had advertised that the bagel had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration Ana provoking retailers Walt acceptable marketing materials, tens could negatively impact their business if such marketing efforts were giving false information. Coloratura Force.

How to Check on the Status of Your Tax Refund in Canada

How to Check on the Status of Your Tax Refund in Canada The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) does not start processing Canadian income tax returns until the middle of February. No matter how early you file your income tax return, you will not be able to get information on the status of an income tax refund until the middle of March. You should also wait until at least four weeks after you file your return before checking on the status of an income tax refund. If you file your return after April 15, you should wait at least six weeks before checking on the status of your return. Processing Times for Tax Refunds The length of time it takes the CRA to process your income tax return and refund depends on how and when you file your return. Processing Times for Paper Returns Paper returns usually take four to six weeks to process.For paper tax returns filed before April 15, wait four weeks before you check on your refund.For paper tax returns filed on or after April 15, wait six weeks before you check on your refund. Processing Times for Electronic Returns Electronic (NETFILE or EFILE) returns can take as little as eight  business days to be processed. However, you should still wait at least four weeks before you check on your refund. Tax Returns Selected for Review Some income tax returns, both paper and electronic, are selected for more detailed tax return reviews by the CRA before they are assessed, as well as afterward. The CRA may ask you to submit documentation to verify claims you submitted. This is not a tax audit, rather it is part of CRA efforts to identify and clarify common areas of misunderstanding in the Canadian tax system. If your tax return is selected for a review, it will slow down the assessment and any refund. Information Required to Check on Your Tax Refund To check on the status of your income tax refund you need to provide the following information: Your Social Insurance NumberThe month and year of your birthThe amount entered as Total Income on line 150 of your income tax return for the previous year. How to Check on Your Tax Refund Online You can check on the status of your income tax return and refund using the My Account tax service, which you can register for using your existing online banking information or by creating a CRA user ID and password. You will be mailed a security code within five to 10 days, but you dont need it to access some limited service options. (The security code has an expiry date, so it is a good idea to use it when it arrives, so you wont have to go through the process again when you want to use My Account for another service.) To access My Account, you will need to provide: Your Social Insurance NumberYour date of birthYour postal code or ZIP code, as appropriateThe amount you entered on your income tax return from either the current tax year or the one before. Have both handy. How to Check on Your Tax Refund by Phone You can use the automated Telerefund service on the Tax Information Phone Service (TIPS) to find out if your return has been processed and when to expect your refund cheque. The TIPS phone number is: 1-800-267-6999The Telerefund service is also available at: 1-800-959-1956

Introduction to Microeconomics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

Introduction to Microeconomics - Essay Example Although, the shift in demand can raise the quantity of food at any given prices, due to the present level of food supply, food prices would have to rise to let this ever-increasing food demand ‘make-up’ with the given supply-level. This making-up of food demand with supply describes upward (leftward) movement along the shifted (new ­) demand curve, raising the equilibrium food prices. Thus, equilibrium food quantity and prices are expected to rise, however, due to the upward movement along new demand curve, the increase in price would keep this increased equilibrium quantity lesser than the shift in demand. But what’s worsening the scenario is leftward shift in food supply which main determinants are unfavorable, volatile weather consequences including droughts, freezes, and floods in the main food producing and exporting countries: China, Russia, Australia, and Mexico. These unpleasant weather conditions have badly affected the crops and other productive resou rces, alarming the food production capacity in these countries. Other harmful environmental changes i.e. global warming can further shift the food supply leftward.

Issue Invention Handout (Formulating an Issue) Assignment

Issue Invention Handout (Formulating an Issue) - Assignment Example Red is love, but also Chinese nationalism and the society in which the word is used can influence which meanings are intended. This was about method : both the way that Chinese people use English in their own way, but also there was an element of perception in how they view the mistakes that occur as something to be ashamed of rather than something funny. I wanted to show how technology creates a link with home for international students, and how this allows them to maintain their links with family, and also form new links with other international students, particularly by sharing images of family members. This is a kind of dual discourse and is very important for student welfare and motivation. There seems to be a clear difference between the way the university communicates with its international students on printed brochures – the language is more imperative and less â€Å"open† than it is in the brochures for other students. There seems to be a clear difference between the way the university communicates with its international students on printed brochures – the language is more imperative and less â€Å"inviting† than it is in the brochures for other