Search results

Examines the attitudes of Thai police regarding drug enforcement in the following areas: drug laws, prosecutors and judges. Assesses the accuracy of officers’ knowledge of drug laws. Explores the effects of 16 independent variables, derived from personal background, institutional support and drug offense information, on officers’ attitudes and knowledge. Using data collected from a survey of 672 Thai police officers, employs ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to examine the aggregate effect of independent variables on officers’ attitudes about drug enforcement and to identify the most significant independent variables. Finds that the officers have positive attitudes regarding drug enforcement but are not knowledgeable about the drug laws, and that several institutional variables have a positive significant influence on these attitudes.

Offers readers a broad overview of recent developments in the area of professional negligence. Shows that in recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of cases directed against surveyors and valuers for negligence. Details mortgage valuations and disclaimers and the bases for liability; the breach of the duty of care; and finally the negligent chattel valuation.

This chapter explores the relationship between disability identity, civil rights, and the law. Twenty-five years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the question remains why disability rights legislation does not go far enough toward addressing access, stigma, and discrimination issues. People with disabilities have found empowerment from disability rights laws, but these laws are also restrictive because they define people in relation to medical aspects of their disabilities and narrowly define society’s obligation for inclusion. The successes and failures of disability rights laws are an important contribution to the study of conceptions of difference.

In September 1994 the Association Française des Banques published a standard master agreement for derivatives and foreign exchange over‐the‐counter transactions. The introduction of this new multi‐product documentation has been rendered possible by the enactment of a specific netting statute which provides for a legal framework allowing inter alia contractual close‐out netting procedure. This standard documentation is strongly inspired by the 1992 ISDA Multicurrency Cross‐Border Master Agreement.

The purpose of this paper is to expose practical and theoretical problems with the range of reasonable responses (RORR) test as applied in UK unfair dismissal law, and to propose an alternative interpretation of the test that would resolve these problems.

Through a close analysis of the purpose and structure of UK unfair dismissal law, and a careful reading of the leading cases in the area, the paper questions whether the law as it is currently interpreted achieves the goals of the underlying legislation. The current interpretation of the law being found lacking, alternatives are considered and evaluated.

The RORR test, as delineated in the most recent Court of Appeal cases, holds that dismissals are fair unless they are based on a reason for which no reasonable employer would dismiss. This interpretation of the test is internally incoherent; moreover, it fails adequately to promote the goals of unfair dismissal law, which are to protect the dignity and autonomy of employees. An alternative and superior interpretation of the test would hold a dismissal to be outside the RORR if no rational theory of management would condone dismissal on the grounds given by the employer.

The paper draws attention to fundamental incoherence in the current interpretation and application of unfair dismissal law, and suggests a new and better approach. If the new approach were accepted by the courts or by Parliament, it could lead to reform in unfair dismissal law.

The paper provides a detailed analysis of the RORR test, a long‐standing and well‐recognized problem in UK unfair dismissal law, and suggests a novel solution that would improve the coherence and function of unfair dismissal law.

Outlines the patchwork of federal law and self‐regulatory codes and guidelines which makes up the legislative system relating to advertising to Canadian children. Lists the former as the Broadcast Code of Advertising to Children, the Telecaster Services of the Television Bureau of Canada, and the CBC Advertising Standards, while self‐regulatory codes include the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards and the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice of the Canadian Marketing Association. Focuses next on Quebec’s provincial laws for advertising to children; Quebec is the only province, and in fact the only jurisdiction in North America, in which commercial advertising to persons under 13 is generally prohibited. Discusses lastly the sensitive issue of collecting personal information from children.

Outlines legal issues in Internet advertising to children in the USA, European Union, Australia and Canada; the Internet is now dominated by mainstream international companies which market to children. Outlines the COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) in the USA, plus the work of CARU (the Children’s Advertising Review Unit). Moves on to the European Union’s Data Protection Directive and Communications Data Protection Directive, and the guidelines of the FEDMA (Federation of European Direct Marketing Associations). Concludes with the Australian Privacy Act and the guidelines of the Canadian Marketing Association.

Outlines the legislation in Italy covering advertising to children, who are regarded as the most vulnerable among consumers. Relates Italy’s legislative policy to its membership of the European Union and therefore to Community law. Describes the self‐regulation regime as administered by the Institute for Advertising Self‐Regulation, and the general principles of child protection with regard to safety, children’s lack of experience, and the natural feelings of adults to adolescents and children. Moves on to specific areas such as cigarettes, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, toys, electronic media, radio and TV, and the Internet; children under 14 must not be used in TV commercials or promotions.

The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual realities and the future, potential, best possible conditions of general stable equilibrium which both pure and practical reason, exhaustive in the Kantian sense, show as being within the realm of potential realities beyond any doubt. The first classical revolution in economic thinking, included in factor “P” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium but neglected the full consideration of the existing, actual conditions. That is the main reason why, in the end, it failed. The second modern revolution, included in factor “A” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of the existing, actual conditions, usually in disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium (in case of stagnation) and neglected the sense of right direction expressed in factor “P” or the realization of general, stable equilibrium. That is the main reason why the modern revolution failed in the past and is failing in front of our eyes in the present. The equation of unified knowledge, perceived as a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern thinking has been applied rigorously and systematically in writing the enclosed American‐British economic, monetary, financial and social stabilization plans. In the final analysis, a new economic philosophy, based on a synthesis between classical and modern thinking, called here the new economics of unified knowledge, is applied to solve the malaise of the twentieth century which resulted from a confusion between thinking in terms of stable equilibrium on the one hand and disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium on the other.

This legal update examines the implications for commercial landlords of regulations required to be made under Energy Act 2011, and to come into force by 1 April 2018. Under those regulations, a landlord “may not let” commercial premises falling below a specified energy performance rating (likely to be E). The sanction of market deprivation arguably represents a significant shift in the balance between incentive and compulsion as the key policy tool adopted by the UK Government in seeking to improve the energy performance of commercial buildings. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The paper sets out and reflects a practitioner's concerns relating to the proposed new sanction of market deprivation. It identifies and highlights practical difficulties likely to be encountered when considering the interaction of the proposed regulations with existing statute (e.g. Landlord and Tenant Act 1954) and contractual provisions such as tenant break clauses.

The prospect of being unable to let commercial premises that fall below a specified energy efficiency rating must focus landlord attention on rights to enter to carry out improvement works. The paper identifies a potentially significant trap for landlords in the model green lease clauses issued by the Better Buildings Partnership where tenant consent is required.

The paper does not reflect extensive or exhaustive academic research. Consistently with its purpose a legal update, it identifies key issues likely to be encountered by practitioners.

The principal practical implication is the need for landlords and their professional advisors to consider as part of any current lease negotiations the need to secure rights of entry for landlords to carry out improvement works where premises are at risk of falling below the energy performance rating likely to be specified in regulations to be made under Energy Act 2011, s 49.

The paper reflects a practitioner's views, developed through client matters and also through designing and delivering professional training sessions, on the likely implications of the requirement for regulations under Energy Act 2011.