Philosophical Definition of Justice: The Role of Accounting

Philosophical Definition of Justice: The Role of Accounting What is Justice? Justice means different things to different people. It is very much a culturally determined concept that requires an innate understanding of a particular person or group of people. For the purpose of this research paper justice is defined as the judgment and process involved with making something that is wrong or bad, right and good. Justice helps us as a society distinguish wrong from right and corrects what is wrong by making it right. But what is right and what is wrong? What is fair and what is just? If something is wrong or unfair, how should society make it right? Such questions have been asked since the beginnings of human interaction. Perhaps under a monarchy justice, for right or wrong, is more easily determined as it is simply what the supreme ruler (or monarch) feels is just or fair. Under a monarchy or aristocratic rule, there is only one ruler and what that individual feels is right, just, or fair, simply is and often cannot be questioned. However, within the realm of more contemporary political systems such as democracy, the ideology of justice, while arguably more fair, can be much more difficult to establish and understand. Democracy, at least in theory, grants the power to the people and therefore places the burden of justice or defining what is fair or equal upon the masses. Since different people have different belief systems they are often in disagreement on what is right or what is fair and have differences of opinion when it comes to justice. Without the aristocracy, justice becomes a very argumentative and ambiguous concept. Philosophy, the Various Schools of Thought, and their Influence on the Ideology of Justice Disagreements over what is fair (or just) have been around since the beginning of time, almost certainly since the very first of human interactions. At first glance we probably think we have a fairly uniform understanding of what justice might or should be. For example if someone commits premeditated first degree murder, most would probably agree the individual should be jailed and, depending on your belief system, either face a life sentence in jail or the death penalty. If someone embezzles money from their company, most would insist the individual should be forced to make restitution and face additional criminal or civil penalty. But even in the seemingly straightforward examples above, and within the realm of a relatively homogenous audience (those reading this paper), one can already start to see how complicated the ideology of justice can be. For example, some have very strong feelings about the death penalty and insist that no crime, even murder, would justify ending another persons life. Additionally, some feel that crimes such as embezzlement are a form of victimless crime and would never warrant a punishment as severe as jail time since no one individual had been harmed. (Hanlin 2004, pp. 527) Within the relatively straightforward scenarios above, one can already begin to imagine the diversity of opinions as to what is just and fair. Should the murder be murdered? Should the embezzler be jailed? What if he only stole the money to pay for chemotherapy for his dying wife? Luckily, numerous philosophers and historians have provided us with rich literature that helps us decipher the complex ideology of justice. In fact, it is only after studying and critically evaluating several of these philosophers, their different schools of ethical and moral thought, and the way they define justice that one can start to understand the differences in perceptions of justice around the world. The next sections provide brief introductions into several of the various schools of ethical and moral thought and provide some insight into the individual philosophers that have undoubtedly helped to shape ours and others understanding of justice. It is only after considering the various schools of thought that we can start to understand the differences in the perception of justice that exist around the world. Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was a utilitarian and insisted that justice is doing what will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. (Justice a Reader pg. 9) The utilitarian school of thought considers the principle of utility as the basis of moral law. Bentham defines utility as whatever promotes pleasure or prevents pain. (Justice A Reader pg. 9) The major criticism / objection to Benthams utilitarian principals come from the perspective that maximum utility, or collective happiness, may come at the expense of violating individual rights. (Justice A Reader pg. 9) In order to refute some of the criticisms of Benthams utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) argued that the idea of justice rests ultimately on utilitarian considerations but also requires a respect for individual rights. (Justice A Reader pg. 9) But even with Mills approach to justice, it becomes extremely difficult to choose and/or decipher between individual rights and the majority or maximum utility. This often leaves us with questions of where to draw the line between the greatest good for the majority and the protection of individual rights. Libertarianism Milton Friedman and other libertarian thinkers were advocates of free markets and critics of government regulation. (Justice A Reader pg. 49) Underlying their (libertarians) laissez-faire stance is the idea that each of us has a fundamental right to liberty – a right to do whatever we want with the things we own, provided we do not violate other peoples rights to do the same. (Justice A Reader pg. 49) Contrary to utilitarian thought, libertarians would never sacrifice individual rights for maximum utility or the benefit of the majority. According to the Libertarians, only a minimal government is necessary. In essence the government should only be put in place such that it enforces contracts, protects private property, and keeps the peace. (Justice A Reader pg. 49) Justice would ensure that we own ourselves and the fruits of our labor, and therefore, as the proprietors of our own person, each of us has the right to decide what to do with our bodies and our labor, with the money we earn, and the goods we possess. (Justice A Reader pg. 49) Justice would be the protection of those rights as well as the individual rights of others. The biggest challenges to libertarian policy usually come in the form of paternalist and/or redistributive laws. Paternalist and redistributive laws typically are enacted such that a society can tax the rich to help the poor. While utilitarian principles strongly favor such laws, Libertarians typically argue that such laws are a form of coerced charity that makes every person the property (perhaps even the slave) of the majority. (Justice A Reader pg. 49) Pure Libertarianism teaches that welfare is a violation of individual rights. Liberationists believe that while the poor should have every right to better themselves, that right should not come at the expense of anyones individual right to what they own or produce. Egalitarian A third school of thought that attempts to define the role of justice in society is egalitarianism. John Rawls (1921-2002) was often described as an egalitarian liberal (Justice A Reader pg. 263) and defined justice as fairness. Rawls believed that justice is a social contract in which people come together to choose the basic principles that will govern their society and proposed that the way to think about justice is to ask what principles would be chosen by people who came together behind a veil of ignorance that temporarily deprived them of any knowledge about where they would wind up in society. (Justice A Reader pg. 203) Accordingly, Rawls moral reasoning requires us to be abstract from the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves (Justice A Reader pg. 203), and justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. (Justice A Reader pg. 203) Rawls rejected utilitarianism and believed that certain individual rights are so fundamental that utilitarian considerations should not override them. (Justice A Reader pg. 203) However, contrary to Freidman and the libertarians, Rawls did not believe that the results of a free market are necessarily fair and was not opposed to the taxation of the privileged to help the poor. In Rawls opinion it would be acceptable, under certain circumstances, to take from the privileged as long as it were helping the underprivileged. Accounting and Justice Regardless of how you define justice or what school of thought you most closely relate to, it is clear the accountant plays a significant role in the establishment and preservation of justice for society. Accounting is the language of business (Bloomfield, 2008) and without it justice cannot exist. Since the beginnings of specialization, when humans stopped being self sufficient and started specializing, bartering, and trading, accounting has become a critical part of human interaction. In todays society accountants serve in many roles critical to the defense and preservation of justice. For example, in the U.S., IRS accountants ensure that citizens pay the appropriate amount of tax, forensic accountants provide investigative services for criminal and civil proceedings, and many of the FBIs anti-terrorist agents use their accounting backgrounds to trace terrorist funding. History of the Spanish Empire One only has to look back a few hundred years to see a perfect example of how the role of an accountant can protect and help preserve, or fail to protect and preserve, an entire civilization. In his book For Good and Evil – The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization, Charles Adams describes how tax fraud lead to the demise of one of the largest and most wealthy empires found in modern times – Imperial Spain. Around the time Christopher Columbus discovered the new world (the 14th and 15th centuries), the Spanish Empire was the strongest empire in the world which has never been equaled in terms of size or money. (Hanlin 2004, pp. 529) It controlled significant portions of Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania (Australia and the Pacific Islands), and at its peak Spains conquered overseas empire was the largest the world has ever known. (Hanlin 2004, pp. 529) However, in the 17th century the vast empire started to disintegrate. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it was not the English fleet defeating the Spanish Armada that brought down the Empire, rather it was tax evasion and revolt by the masses against the patronage system that ultimately lead to the bankruptcy of the empire. After several revolts from within the empire, and long civil war, the Spanish Empire was forced to increase taxes to pay soldiers to put down the various rebellions. As a result, many of the people in the colonies engineered what was probably the best system of fraud and evasion that history has ever known. (Hanlin 2004, pp. 530) When the Spanish authorities tried to tax goods that passed through the major ports, the Spanish businessmen created complicated schemes to have silver and gold shipped to alternate ports away from the customs officials, even laundering it through foreign countries. (Hanlin 2004, pp. 530) In order to avoid the Royal Fifth – a 20% cu stoms tax and a 35% convoy tax on good from the colonies, the Spanish businessmen transformed commerce into one massive smuggling operation by avoiding the authorities and therefore the taxes. (Hanlin 2004, pp. 530) The Empire tried to stop the smuggling and division of money and goods away from the taxing authorities but simply did not have the means to control and stop the smuggling and tax evasion. As a result, the overseas empire could not defend itself and stealing the colonies of Spain became an international sport as most of the colonies were lost to the British, Dutch, and eventually the United States. Contemporary Accounting and Justice Given its role as the language of business, accountings integral role in society continues to grow as global economies grow and become increasingly interconnected. World GDP has grown from $1.34 trillion in 1960 to $60.6 trillion in 2008. (The World Bank, 2009). The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners estimates that in the U.S. 7% of total GPD is lost to fraud and injustice. (ACFE, 2008) When applied to a global GPD of $60.6 trillion loses resulting from fraud and injustices are estimated to have been $994 billion in 2008. $994 billion is a staggering number but in fact may be understated as many developing countries face an even higher percentage of fraud due to the lack of infrastructure and the ability to combat fraud. According the Corruption Perception Index (CPI), the U.S. ranks 19th (with 1st indicating the least amount of corruption) out of 182 countries surveyed for the amount of perceived corruption within a particular country indicating that, on a global scale, losses probably well exceed the trillion dollar mark annually. So who is best equipped to protect and defend the innocent from the injustices of fraud? The answer is simple, the accountants around the world. Accountants understand the language of business better than anyone and therefore are best suited to be the defenders of justice and fight the injustices that exist across the globe. Just or unjust, they may have even been able to preserve the Spanish Empire. Distributive Justice Another manner in which accountants play an integral role in society is through distributive justice. Utilitarian principles have led to many governments and societal systems that incorporate and rely upon paternalist or redistributive laws. For example, the U.S. and many other countries tax their wealthy citizens and use the funds to run social support programs for the poor such as welfare, unemployment, section 8 housing, etc. Such programs are a form of distributed justice. Robert Nozick describes distributive justice as follows: In contemporary political theory, distributive justice is primarily about the allocation of income, wealth, and opportunity. (Justice A Reader pg. 263) If distributive justice does represent the allocation of income and wealth, than who other than that accountant, who understands the language of business and taxation, would be best equipped to establish and preserve distributed justice? Another example of distributive justice and the role that an accountant plays is the concept of price gauging. Michael Sandel uses a great example in his teachings at Harvard when discussing the events that often transpire in the aftermath of a hurricane. Often, in the days following a major hurricane, for example Hurricane Charley in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, local retailers charge prices for common goods such as bags of ice and gas powered generators in excess of 1000% of their normal price. (Justice, 2009) Should such practices be considered simply the effects of supply and demand or is it injustice on the part of the retailer in the form of price gauging? Regardless of your opinion on price gauging laws, it is evident the accountant is best equipped to understand and determine whether or not price gauging exists and how to best allocate monies. Who other than the accountant would understand all the transactions taking place between retailers and consumers? In both cases above, the enforcement of paternalistic laws and analysis of price gauging activities, accountants are the ones that ensure monies are appropriately being collected and allocated, thereby defending justice as a society sees fit. Justice and the Role of the Accountant Globally Increasingly, corporations and businesses are taking on the global environment. This requires that accountants and auditors be able to identify the different risks associated with international interconnectedness and be able counteract these risks with the necessary precautions. The global environment adds additional complications for the role of the accountant and actually increases the responsibilities as the defender of justice. In a global spectrum, there are many different laws and regulations and thus, the role of the accountant changes depending on the environment in which the rules are generated. Culture is a huge influence on accounting regulation. Additionally, culture is intertwined within the market and political forces that help to shape the resulting accounting system. The different interaction of these forces in an environment helps to determine the place of the accountant in the economic system, which has a direct effect on the accountants role as the defender of just ice. Justice can only prevail in a society that embraces it. Perceived levels of corruption can be indicative of the state of the economy of a particular country which can help to define or determine the role of the accountant. If there are very few cases of fraud, but high levels of corruption perception it can be an indication that the appropriate level of justice is not being achieved. If enforcement of laws and regulation is inconsistent then a tougher approach may be needed to combat corruption. Transparency International states that in order to minimize corruption there needs to be strong oversight by governments, law enforcement, media, and the society. If a country is lacking oversight, corruption can continue to get worse. As a result, the role of the accountant in these environments would be limited since rules, laws, and regulations are not embraced and enforced. Regulation is only part of the battle. Change will only be effective if it comes from a commitment that is made by businesses and governments of all sizes. Stronger institutional oversight is needed across the world. There needs to be strict legal frameworks and more alert regulation by enforcement agencies in addition to accountants and auditors that ensure lower levels of corruption. As noted in an article issues by Transparency International, persistently high corruption in low-income countries amounts to an ongoing humanitarian disaster. According to the CPI index, China has improved over last year showing that their efforts to reduce corruption by enacting reforms, the implementation of forceful investigation, and intense sentencing have created less perceptions of corruption than before, but still remains a very serious problem. Norways score indicates that as a result of some serious scandals that have emerged over the last few years there is a significant problem in the private and public sectors. However, a growing number of cases being investigated and prosecuted demonstrates that they are at least trying to make headway. Italy is declining in the corruption index because of severe fraud and corruption that exist in the public health system and because of the recent arrests of politicians and public officials in the Abruzzo region. France also has also seen several cases of public officials that were connected to corrupt activities surface recently. Somalia, having the lowest CPI score highlights that there is a link between economic and political collapse. Additionally, Iraqs score of 1.3 shows the importance of establishing solid and functioning institutions capable of preventing corruption and implementing the rule of law. In all cases, the examples provide insight and indicate a need for regulation and an increased role for accountants because justice is not being found. Accounting Regulation Globally Accounting rules can indicate a lot about a country. Accounting rules are created in such a way that they fit the environment that they exist in, which varies across countries and cultures. If society wishes to protect the investor, the accounting system will have disclosure rules that enable investors to gain information and protect themselves. While some countries are developing regulations that contain investor protection improvements, in many cases much more work needs to be done. The manner in which markets function and the way politics are conducted greatly affect accounting systems and often lead to drastic differences across countries. The role of the accountant and, furthermore, the way that justice is enforced will also vary greatly amongst countries. Common law countries differ from codified law countries because common law countries have an independent body to interpret the law. Accounting rules in common law countries are determined by the private sector and require lengthy disclosure since there are no close relationships with corporations. However, code law countries require that corporations be heavily involved the government. The government often includes banks, labor unions, and major suppliers in rule-making decisions. As a result, transactions in these countries tend to be focused more on private information. There are institutional differences between all countries. Institutional differences enable economic and accounting systems to differ, thus the role of the accountant and the justice that results will differ amongst these countries. Accounting regulation in Germany allows more discretion on the accountant because it is written in more general terms. However, in France the regulation is more rigid, enables less discretion, and thus provides less wiggle room on the part of corporations. In Switzerland there are very few disclosure requirements, which can facilitate the reporting of smooth earnings through the usage of hidden reserves. Further, some accounting systems are difficult to compare because they do not fit within any particular mold. For example, the accounting system in Finland was created specifically for use by the foresting industry. By looking at international comparisons of accounting systems, it is evident there is no single way of performing accounting. As a result, the accounting rules are different and change to become an integral part of the markets and politics of each country and culture. Market demand affects the financial statements because the corporations must pay to prepare them. The political environment is important because the government has the ability to control regulators and possibly interfere with regulation. In order to perform and understand the different accounting processes, accountants must be aware of the different forces that exist in a particular country. By being aware of the different forces, accountants will be able to more aptly ensure that justice prevails in the country they operate. As evidenced above, accounting regulations vary across countries, time, and cultures which causes significant variations in the role of the accountant. While countries have been extending efforts to strengthen accounting rules and oversight, this alone cannot and will not prevent future fraud. (Leuz, 2002). But there are many benefits to implement strong laws and enforcement in order to protect shareholders rights. U.S. firms are not the only ones experiencing problems, as many firms globally are suffering from accounting irregularities. Some countries experience self-dealings and misappropriations of profits because of weaker legal measures. Weak legal measures create a greater incentive to manipulate the financial statements to conceal poor business performance. Manipulation is less apparent in places where outside investors have legal rights to vote out corrupt managers. However, manipulation is predominant in places like Austria, Italy, Germany, Southeast Asia, South Korea and Ta iwan, because they do not have investor protection. East Asian Perspective The East Asian countries, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand can help accountants see the way that accounting standards interact with the incentives of managers and auditors. (Ball, Ashok, et al, Incentives versus standards) The accounting standards in these countries come from a common law environment. Common law countries generally create high quality financial reporting. However, in these countries the preparers incentives generate low quality financial statements. The preparer incentives again, depend on the market and political forces and how these forces interact with one another. Market forces are dependent on the demand for high-quality financial reporting. The political forces depend on the government involvement in the creation and enforcement of the regulation. The interaction of these forces with the accounting system can drastically change the role of the accountant in these countries. The standards themselves are viewed as high-quality, but the institutional s tructure creates incentives for preparers incentives to issue low-quality financial reports. Financial reporting in East Asia generally exists with an incentive structure that is similar to a code-law model. However, the East Asian countries do not follow that model. Their governments have code-law reporting incentive features, but also have indications that the environment reduces the financial reporting quality. The large amount of family-owned businesses and enterprises is a cause for the low need of quality financial statements. One family generally owns investments that are inter-related. These networks are commonly referred to guanxi networks. These networks attempt to take away the demand of required disclosures and timely loss recognition and it also reduces the communication required with stakeholders. The extent of government involvement in the standard setting and the financial reporting practice differs across these countries. Political factors can create an incentive to hide large profits and losses. The political environments in these East Asian countries have a tendency to want companies to succeed, so they recommend companies hide losses. They also are afraid of other countries becoming involved in their practices because they do not want to be held accountable for any misstatements. The companies are also expected to report smooth earnings, which reinforces the desire to report, cover, and hide losses. Litigation is minimal in these countries since there is a large incentive to hide earnings, which the government reinforces. There have been very few cases of judicial actions in these countries. Audit quality in these countries is poor primarily due to lack of auditor independence. The influence and independence of the accounting profession is an indicator of ineffective enf orcement of accounting standards. Considering the financial incentives for managers and auditors there is a greater incentive for reduced timeliness and conservatism in accounting earnings. Fraud is continuing to go undetected in Hong Kong. Although there is a 22% incidence of fraud, much more is expected to be going on given the different forces that are currently having an effect on the country. As a result, currently more scrutiny is being given to the monitoring of financial transactions and corporations are beginning to make it a priority. There are currently programs that are offered for certification in forensic accounting, which is having an impact on fraud detection. Most of the fraud cases that exist in Hong Kong are internet banking fraud, computer fraud, misuse of corporations credit card, and electronic funds transfer fund. There is a need for more forensic accountants in Singapore in order to ensure sufficient justice as many significant fraud cases are going undetected. Two important fraud cases involved Fibrechem Technologies and Oriental Century. In the Fibrechem Technologies audit, Ernst Young Singapore were not certain of the cash and trade debtor balance. KPMG had the same problem with Oriental Century. Another notable case is one in which a Singapore monk, who was in charge of Singapores well-known charities, received 10 months in prison for committing fraud. In Malaysia, the role of accounting in the fight for justice is very small. Crimes are beginning to become more and more complicated and controlled but forensic accounting is viewed as a service that only larger companies can afford. This makes catching fraud more difficult. Cases that are investigated are generally handled by the Bukit Aman Commercial Crime Division. This group was able to catch a large fraud that involved the CEO and two others of Transmile Group Bhd for publishing misleading financial statements and has often been called Malaysias Enron. Fraud and forensic accounting is a relatively new topic in Thailand. According to an Ernst Youngs global survey, more than half of the companies in Thailand have suffered significant fraud. The management of the corporations was responsible for over half while employees ranked second, responsible for 45% of the fraud incidents reported. Asset misappropriation was the biggest concern. (MPA Program: Forensic accounting project) The commercial crimes in Thailand are becoming more and more complicated and organized. Forensic accounting is used to combat this to an extent, but is only utilized in the public sector. It is also noted in Thailand that there remains an enormous amount of well documented corruption related to the government amounting to billions of US dollars. There are many cases where Thailands auditor general, Jaruvan Maintaka, was able to bring about cases against members of the government but there are even more cases linked to the military involving loans from politicia ns. Chinese Perspective This accounting profession is still at the early stage of development in China, and a lack of skilled professionals creates problems for regulators. To a large extent the accounting standards and practices in China lack conservatism Doupnik and Perera note in their International Accounting textbook. There are also no sound interpretations of the relevant requirements that need to be implemented to have an effective accounting system. The theory of true and fair presentation and transparency may not be clearly understood by Chinese accountants. Until the 1980s, those who carried out accounting work were not held in high regard which had a very negative effect on the development of the accounting profession in China. Unlike in other countries, accounting and auditing have taken different paths in their development as rival disciplines with the support of different government agencies. However, there has been some growth in the accounting profession due to the recent economic reform pro gram and the demand for financial information from investors has increased. There are many fraud cases evident in China. One high-profile case that deserves mentioning was with Zhu Xiaohua who was the chairman of state-owned company, Everbright Group. Zhu was convicted to 15 years in prison for taking $500,000 in bribes. These bribes were taken between 1997 and 1999. The bribes were for the purchase of shares in a company that resulted in large losses. Another example of fraud in China was when a business woman, Du Yimin, was sentenced to death for running a Ponzi scheme that cheated investors out of YUAN700m ($102 million). (Lin, 2009) According to Lin, the Chinese Ministry of Public Security has been stepping up such prosecutions and says there are now 1,416 similar cases open, involving YUAN10bn ($1.5 billion) in investors money. In China it is still possible to receive the death penalty for fund-raising fraud, however, if a Chinese person is charged with collecting money illegally from private investors, the maximum sentence is 10 years in prison. In Chi na is evident that ethics are not being followed across the board. Japanese Perspective Japan also differs from other cultures and has a different role of the accountant and effectively different need for justice. The Japanese attitudes towards external auditors and the audit function are different from others. This is due to the cultural value orientation of not trusting someone from outside the group. Companies are not under pressure from their main providers of finance to disclose information publicly and companies are reluctant to provide information voluntarily. As a result, the a

Employee Volunteer Program Essay

Employee volunteer program is a major part of the Corporate Citizenship profile that has become an intrinsic agenda of many successful companies, who understand the value of community service and are ready to contribute their resources in its various forms to such gesture. This is because the importance of employee development is overwhelming: it extends to the company, the employee and the community in which the program is launched. This concept of employee volunteer program describes a situation a company sets a mission statement and proposes goals with a view to contributing to the community in which they live, by getting their employee involved in charity, giving, and community services. These seeming philanthropic activities are targeted at a particular community, usually that which the company serves with its products and services. This agenda is an indispensable program for excellent companies: it is important because it contributes to the Corporate Citizenship Outlook of the company which is promoted among the members of such community. A detailed look at the benefits of the plan has made intelligent company leaders and boards to incorporate it into their company’s mission statement. Really, the importance of corporate social responsibility can not be overemphasized. The benefits are enormous: it is a win-win situation for all. The employees, if well incorporated into the agenda, are strengthened in human relationships, and there is increased employee loyalty. Loyalty is fast promoted when the program recognizes, acknowledges and duly appreciates employee contribution to the company. The company social image is promoted because of such programs. It increases its ability to penetrate the society, and convince it of its products or services; it also makes the organization ‘ a good corporate citizen’. Communities benefit directly from the program: there is associated development. A section of the society is improved through the charity, giving and other forms the program could have taken. Everyone smiles home. And this impact makes the community another marketable centre for the organization, and an extension of its advertising unit. Its benefits outweigh its costs. However, those are also very important as it makes a decision to incorporate such a balanced one: the financial implications are enormous since it is usually a charity parade. This is one of the major costs that the company battles with. It is only with effective communication that employees see the need for it; otherwise, it won’t achieve it set goals. This implies that companies should be ready to create a viable structure for it, fund such and promote it even to the employees that would be involved. Since it is a volunteer, it stands the risk of non-compliance if this structure and communication are not in place. However, employee volunteer program promotes the Company, its employee and the community served. It is a good agenda for a corporate social responsibility.

Notes of Commercial Law

Contracts (C3, pg 58) |Nature of contract |- Legal relationship consisting of the right and promises constituting an agreement between the parties that give each party a legal | | |duty to the other and also the right to seek for breach of those duties | | |- Consensus ad idem (meeting of minds); what the parties agree on must be clear and unambiguous and parties must be ad idem. | |Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man (2006) , | | |T2 Networks Pte Ltd v Nasioncom Sdn Bhd (2008) | |Types of Contracts | Oral contracts | | |Written contract provides evidence of the parties’ contractual obligations. | |Forefront Medical Technology (Pte) Ltd v Modern-Pak Pte Ltd (2006) | | |Parol evidence rule = oral evidence not admissible to add to, vary, amend or contradict written contract s 93-94 Evidence Act (refer | | |to Terms) | | |Engelin Teh Practice LLC v Wee Soon Kim Anthony (2004) | . Offer (C3, pg 63) |As the expression to another of a willingness to be bound by stated terms. | |Invitation to treat (pg 64) | |An invitation to others to enter into a negotiation which may eventually lead to the making of an offer. | |An ad is view as invitations to treat. | |Auction without reservations (refer to Barry v Davis (2000) pg 5) |(Offer = Bids made by audience, Acceptance = Auctioneer indicates bids accepted) | |Display of Goods | |Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd (1952) the court held that the display of goods with prices constitutes an | |invitation to treat. The offer is only made when a customer selects the item he wants and brings it to the cashier to pay for it. |Reaffirmed by Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong & Others v Digilandmall com Pte Ltd (2004) | |Advertisements An ad is view as invitations to treat. | |Partridge v Crittenden (1968) | |Provision of Information | |Harvey v Facey (1893) – The court held that there was no contract because provision of information was not an offer .Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean | |(1880) – Seeking for more information is neither a rejection nor acceptance, it was merely an enquiry. | |*compare between offer and invitation to treat, must prove why choose one over the other | |Specific Offeree |An offer is an expression made by one party to another party. For an offer to be effective, the offer must be communicated to the | | |offeree. | Unilateral Contracts |A contract brought into existence by the act of one party in response to a conditional promise by another. Harvela Investments Ltd v | |(involving only one |Royal Trust Co of Canada (Cl) Ltd & Ors (1984)No exchange of promise, only 1 promise (made by offeror). | |side) |Offeree makes no promise, only performs conditions attached to offeror’s promise. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) – Where | |(pg 63) |advertisement contains a promise in return for an act, an offer is intended. (No general rule that an ad cannot be an offer. | |Bi-lateral Co ntracts |An agreement where one party makes a promise to the other party. | |(involving on 2 side |There are duties, rights and considerations on both parties. In other words, performance of the conditions is an acceptance of the | |or both) |offer and this acceptance should be notified. | Termination of Offer (Pg 75) (5 ways) |Withdrawal |Law: Offer can be withdrawn or revoked by the offeror at any time before it is accepted. (When an offer is withdrawn, the offer is said | | |to be revoked). Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v Turegum Insurance Co (2001) | | |Law: Withdrawal must be communicated to offeree (Revocation is only effective when the offeree receives notice of the revocation) Byrne | | |v Van Tienhoven (1880) – It was held that the revocation was not effective until it was received by the plaintiff. Since the offer was | | |accepted prior to the revocation, there was a valid contract. | |Law: Revocation of offer can be communicated by a third party (as long as offeree obtains knowledge of the revocation) (must be a | | |reliable and trustworthy source) Dickinson v Dodds (1876) Law: Fresh Offer (Revocation can also occer if the offer is replaced by a | | |fresh offer) Ban Paribas v Citibank NA (1989) | | |Law: Offer is opened for a fixed period Routledge v Grant (1828) –Rationale is that an offeree cannot enforce an offeror’s promise to | | |keep his offer open unless there is separate contract supported by consideration to do so, such contracts are called options – Tay Joo | | |Sing v Ku Yu Sang – essentially a promise, supported by consideration, to keep an offer open for a specific period of time within which | | |to decide whether or not to enter into the purchase of agreement. | | |Law: Unilateral Contracts Abbot v Lance (1860), it was held that the offeror cannot withdraw his offer once the offeree has started to | | |act. – Dickson Trading(s) Pte Ltd v Transmarco Ltd (1989), obiter dictum, the offeror in a unilateral contract has an obligation not to | | |revoke the offer after the offeree has involved in the performance of the conditions. |Lapse of time |Acceptance after specific period which offeror states that his offer is open = Ineffective | | |If the offer is opened for a specified period, a purported acceptance after that period would not be effective since the offer had | | |lapsed. the court may imply that the offeror has specified the period of offer even if he has not done so expressly. Wee Ah Lian v Teo | | |Siak Weng (1992) | | |- however, if it is clear from the offeror’s conduct and other evidence that the terms of the supposedly lapsed offer continue to govern| | |their relationship after the specified period, then it is still valid and acceptable after the deadline. Panwell Pte Ltd & Anor v | | |Indian Bank (No2) (2002) | | |When no specified period of time is expressed, an offer would lapse after a reasonable amount of time, (depending on the facts of the | | |case). Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co v Montefiore (1866) – the court held that Montefiore could refuse to take up the shares because his | | |offer had lapsed after a reasonable time. | |Failure of |Offer automatically terminated if condition not met | |Condition |An offer may terminate on the occurrence of a specified event if the offer is subjected to the condition that it will do. e. g. erminate| | |if goods are damaged before acceptance, subject to the approval of my lawyer Financings Ltd v Stimson (1962) | |Death |Dickinson v Dodds( if the man who makes an offer dies, the offer cannot be accepted after he is dead. Reynolds v Atherton (1921)( | | |Offeree dies before acceptance, this offer cease to be capable of acceptance. Bradbury v Morgan (1862)( the court held that the death of| | |an offeror did not terminate the offer unless the offeree had notice of the offeror’s death. | 2. Acceptance (C3, pg 67) |Indication by the offeree of his consent to the offer and his intention to form a contract based on the exact terms of the offer | |- Whatever its form, a communication constitutes acceptance only if it is an unconditional expression of assent to the terms of offer.Compaq Computer Asia| |Pte Ltd v Computer Interface(s) Pte Ltd (2004) | |- Conditional Acceptance is treated as no acceptance. Struttgart Auto Pte Ltd v Ng Shwu Yong (2005); | |- Accepts seller’s offer subject to a written contract drafted – Thmoas Plaza (Pte) Ltd v Liquidators of Yaohan Departmental Store Singapore Pte Ltd (in | |liquidation) (2001); | |- Agreenment shall not be final and binding agreement – Cendekia Candranegara Tjiang v Yin Kum Choy & Others (2002) | |Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. 1877) The Court held that the facts and actual conduct of the parties, established the existence of a contract, and | |there having a clear breach of it, Brogden must be held liable upon it. | |Law: Acceptance of unilateral contract is when all the terms o f the contract are fully performed Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) | |Counter |Offeree introduces a new term or varies the terms of an offer (original offeror is free to accept or reject the â€Å"counter offer†) Hyde v Wrench | |Offer |(1840) – The court held that there was no contract because Hyde’s reply was a counter offer which extinguished the earlier offer.When the | | |response is an inquiry or a request of information, it should not be construed as an offer | |Knowledge|Law: Offeree cannot accept in ignorance of the law | |of Offer |offeree must be aware of the offer – Fitch v Snedaker (1868) and R v Clarke (1927) – As long as offeree has knowledge of offer, motive is | | |irrelevant. Once the offeree is aware of the offer, it does not matter that he was prompted to act for reasons other than the desire to accept | | |the offer.William v Carwardine (1833) – the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a reward, she ha d done so with knowledge of the reward| | |even though her motive for giving the information was her own remorse. | | |Cross-offer: Do not constitute to agreement/contract; lack of consensus / meeting of minds between parties at the time of making offer. – Tinn v | | |Hoffman & Co (1873) | |Communica|General Rule: Acceptance must be communicated (Acceptance must actually be received by the offeror) | |tion of |Acceptance effective when communicated/received by offeror. | |Acceptanc|If in writing, it must be physically received by the offeror, and if orally, heard by the offeror. Acceptance must be unconditional and absolute. |e |obiter dictum in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation (1955) and CS Bored Pile System Pte Ltd v Evan Lam &Co Pte Ltd (2006) | | |Powell v Lee (1908) Held that there was no authorized communication of intention to contract on part of the body hence no contract. | |Silence |Silence is only a form of acceptance if both parties agree to it. Silence o f the offeree would not constitute a valid acceptance | | |Felthouse v Bindley (1862)–held that there was no contract between the two parties. The plaintiff had no right to impose a condition that a sale | | |contract would come into existence if the defendant remained silent. | |Exemption case: Both parties agree that the offeree would have a positive obligation to communication only if he wished to reject the offer. | | |Albeit rare in practice, silence is properly be construed as acceptance – Southern Ocean Shipbuilding Co Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG (1993) and | | |Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte Ltd (2004) – defendant’s conduct of paying the reduced rent showed that a contact exists. | |Instantan|Time of acceptance is the time at which the acceptance is communicated to the offeror | |eous |Ithe acceptance will take effect when and where it is received, acceptance must be absolute and unconditional Entores v Miles Far East Corp | Communica|(1955) | |tions |- if got designated info system; receipt when e-record entered the designated info system. Emails, Fax, Telex | | |- if got designated info system but sent elsewhere then is receipt upon retrieval. | | |- if no designated info system; receipt upon entering any info system of addressee. | |Exception|The Postal Rule (ONLY FOR LETTERS OF ACCEPTANCE! ) | |s |- Quenerduaine v Cole (1883) – telegram means speedy reply; not attracted by postal rule.Offeror will claim that it is only valid acceptance | | |when physically received. | | |- Agreement cannot be withdrawn once the post is sent out. Henthorn v Fraser (1892) | | |- Acceptance deemed effective as soon as the letter is posted regardless as to when it reaches the offeror or whether it reaches him at all. | | |Adams v Lindsell (1818) | | |- the court held that the acceptance was communicated and the contract was formed as soon as the plaintiff posted the acceptance letter. Lee | | |Seng Heng v Guard ian Assurance CO Ltd (1932) | | |Waiver of Communication: facts show that the offeror has waived the need for communiation of acceptance; when offer made to whole world | | |(unilateral contract; anyone can accept) – Calill v Carbolic Smoke Ball. | | |( the doing of the act by the offeree may itself be constructed as acceptance, without requiring formal communication to the offeror. | | |Termination of acceptance: Once posted, an acceptance cannot be revoked. – Wenkheim v Arndt (1873) | 3. Consideration (C4, Pg 85) Two Main Rules on Consideration Must move from promisee but need not move to promisor.Tweedle v Atkinson (1861) Need not be adequate but must be sufficient. Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) |Is what each party gives to the other as the agreed price for the other’s promise | |Detriment to one OR Benefit to another | |But it need not move to the promisor Malayan Banking Bhd v Lauw Wisanggeni – A third party who is a stranger to the contra ct may benefit from the contract | |although he may not enforce it. | |Need not be adequate but must be sufficient – Law will not interfere with parties contract so long as consideration is of â€Å"some value† in the eyes of the | |law. |In order for a promise to be enforceable in court, consideration must first be given (exchange of promises would be sufficient consideration)– Dunlop v | |Selfridge (1915) | |Past Consideration is |Refers to an act performed prior to and to that extent independent of, the promises being exchanged (act performed without the | |not valid |reciprocal promise in mind). | | |Past consideration is no consideration The court held that the promise was made after the transaction had already been concluded | | |and therefore past consideration.Roscorla v Thomas (1842) and Teo Song Kwang (alias Richard) v Gnau Lye Chan and Another (2006) | | |To become executed consideration: – Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) and Sim Tony v Ah Ghee (t /a Phil Real Estate &Building Services) | | |(1995) | | |Act done at promisor’s request If the promisor has previously asked the other party to provide goods or services, then a promise | | |made after they are provided will be treated as binding. | | |Contract must otherwise be enforceable Done in biz context and it is clearly understood by both sides that it will be paid for then| | |valid.Re Caseys’s Patent v Casey (1892) held the request to Casey to manage the patent carried an implied promise to pay for that | | |service, hence it was enforceable. | |Consideration must move|The only person who can sue for breach of contract must be the party who has given consideration (promise) – Tweedle v Atkinson | |from the promisee |(1861) – the court held that Tweedle could not enforce the contract between the two fathers because firstly he is not a party of | | |the contract, and secondly, no consideration flowed from him. | | |Consideration need not move to the promisor; 3rd party can may benefit although may not enforce it. Malayan Banking Bhd v Lauw | | |Wisanggeni | |Sufficient, |- Law will not inquire to the fairness of consideration, as long as the parties agree to it willingly – Lam Hong Leong Aluminium | |Need not be Adequate; |Pte Ltd v Lian Teck Huat Consruction Pte Ltd and Another (2003) | |Adequacy of |- Law does not measure value (once the subject of exchange is recognized in law as suitable consideration, quantity is irrelevant) | |Consideration |- Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprise Pte Ltd v Navalmar UK Ltd (No2) (2003) and Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) –the | | |consideration included the wrappers even though they were of no value to Nestle. | | |Thomas v Thomas (1842) – The court held that the nominal rent was sufficient consideration but the husband’s wishes were | | |irrelevant; motive is not the same thing as consideration. |Sufficiency of |A promise not to enforce a Claim is Good Consideration Promise not to sue or enforce a valid claim or settlement of legal action = | |Consideration |sufficient consideration Lam Hong Leong Aluminium Pte Ltd v Lian Teck Huat Consruction Pte Ltd and Another (2003) and Alliance Bank| | |Ltd v Broom (1864) Normally, banks would not promise to enforce debt but is not done here. For not suing, considerations shown ( | | |binding agreement to provide security. | |Sufficient |Forbearance to sue |A promise to forbear from suing or enforcing a valid claim can constitute sufficient or valuable | | | |consideration. Alliance Bank Ltd v Broom (1864).K-Rex Finance Ltd v Cheng Chih Cheng (1993) – The court | | | |spoke the words of Cockburn CJ in Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1870). | | | |The same applies to a compromise of a legal action. The req. is that the legal action must be reasonable and| | | |not frivolous, that the claimant has an honest belief that in the chance of success of the claim and that | | | |the claimant h as not concealed from the other party any fact which, to the claimant’s knowledge, might | | | |affect its validity.Miles v New Zealand Alford Estate Co (1886) | | |Performance of |The Eurymedon (1975) – The Privy Council held that even though the defendant was already contractually bound| | |existing contractual |to a third party to do so, the defendant’s act of unloading the ship formed good consideration for the | | |duty to third party |contract with the plaintiff. This was also clarified in Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) by the HOL. This was | | | |also accepted in the Singapore High Court in SSAB Oxelosund AB v Xendral Trading Pte Ltd (1992). | |Moral obligation & |Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) – The court rejected the plaintiff’s view and held that moral obligation is | | |motives |insufficient consideration for a fresh promise. | |Insufficient |Vague or insubstantial|White v Bluett (1853) – The court held that Bluett’s promise was no thing more than a promise â€Å"not to bore | | |consideration |his father†. As such it was too vague(fake) and was insufficient consideration for the alleged discharge by | | | |his father. | | |Performance of |Collins v Godefroy (1831) –Performance of an existing public duty is not valid consideration. | |existing public duty |Glassbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan City Council (1925)- If the court finds the promisee did something more that| | | |required by an existing public duty, then it may be sufficient. | | |Performance of |Stilk v Myrick (1809) – It was held that there was no consideration for the captain’s promise because the | | |existing contractual |remaining crew did what they were contractually required. Two sailors deserting were within the usual | | |duty |emergencies found in such a voyage. | | |However, if it is more than what is contractually required, that may constitute good consideration – Hartley| | | |v Ponsonby (1857) and William s v Roffey Bros (1991) – The English Court of Appeal held that as long as the | | | |extra payment was not given under duress or fraud, the oral promise was enforceable because the defendant | | | |obtained â€Å"practical benefits† from the plaintiff’s work. The benefit was that they would not be liable under| | | |the main contract for late completion. | | |Rule in Pinnel’s Case |Pinnel’s case is authority for the proposition that payment of a lesser sum without anything extra is not a | | | |good consideration. | | |- It would be good consideration provided with a gift (can be anything, even time) is given as the gift | | | |might be more beneficial than the money. -But if the person asks me pay lesser, then cannot sue. – If I | | | |accepted a smaller amount, after that I decided to sue again, CAN! Provided no gift! | | | |Pinnel’s Case (1602) – The part payment of a debt does not discharge the entire debt unless the part p ayment| | | |was made at the request of the creditor and the payment was made earlier, at a different place, or in | | | |conjunction with some other valuable consideration.Foakes v Beer (1884) affirmed Pinnel’s Case – the HOL | | | |held that Beer’s promise not to take further action was not supported by consideration. She could claim the | | | |money. ( in Euro-Asia Realty Pte Ltd v Mayfair Investment Pte Ltd (2001), District Court in Singapore | | | |endorsed the rule in Foakes v Beer and held favor in creditor. | | |Promissory Estoppel is an equitable doctrine whose origin may be traced to Lord Cairns in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877). | | |When p. e. is established, the court may enforce a promise despite the fact that there was no consideration. Central London | | |Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd (1947) | | |Elements (Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd (1947) and D&C Builders v Rees (1966)) | | |1)Parties must have existin g legal relationship 2)Clear and unequivocal promise which affects the legal relationship 3)Promisee | | |relied upon promise and altered his position 4)Inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise. | |Promissory Estoppel |Cause of action | |(For no consideration) |When the promisor gives reasonable notice of his intention to revert to the original legal relationship, the original relationship | | |is restored. The effect of p. e. is to suspend promisor’s rights temporarily.Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co| | |Ltd (1995) However, the promise could become ‘final and irrevocable if the promisee cannot resume his position. † Ajayi v R T | | |Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd (1964) | | |A defensive tool | | |This means that it can only be raised as a shield and not a sword, i. e. a defense against a claim and not to commence a suit.Combe| | |v Combe (1951) (people sue you then can use ) Assoland Construction Pte Ltd v Malayan Credit Properties Pt e Ltd (1993) and Lai Yew | | |Tay Pte Ltd v Pilecon Engineering BHd (2002) | | | | 4. Intention to Create Legal Relations (Pg 17) |The test is whether a reasonable person viewing all the circumstances of the case would consider that the promisor intended his promise to have legal | |consequences. objective test† (objectively ascertained) | |Social and |General presumption = no legal intention | |Domestic |Balfour v Balfour (1919) and Jones v Padavatton (1969) – An agreement is not legally binding unless the parties intend that each will | |Agreements |accept the lefal consequences for its breach. Choo Tiong Hin v Choo Hock Swee (1959) – the plaintiff’s promises were not enforceable | | |because the lack of intention to create legal relations. De Cruz Andrea Heidi v Guangzhou Yuzhitang Health Products Co Ltd and Others | | |(2003) -Friend doing a favor even though secret profit or commission is earned. | |However in Merritt v Merritt (1970) and Wakeling v Ripley– The English Court of Appeal found the necessary intention and held that the | | |wife succeeded in her claim for breach of contract. | |Commercial |General presumption = Legal intention | |Agreements |- There is necessary intention to create legal relations. Edwards v Skyway Ltd (1964) – The court held that Skyways was legally bound. | | |Binding but unenforceable | | |Honour Clauses – When parties have expressly stated that their agreement is not to be legally binding. Rose &Frank Co v J R Crompton | | |&Bros Ltd (1925) | | |Exceptions (not legally binding): | | |Letter of Comfort (pg 17) ( may be binding depending on its terms | | |usually a document supplied by a 3rd party to a creditor indicating a concern to ensure that a debtor meets his obligations to the | | |creditor. | | |Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysian Mining Corporation Berhad (1989) Court only found a moral not legal obligation. refer to pg 17) | | |Letter of Intent (LOI) (pg 17) | | |A de vice by which one indicates to another of his intention to enter into a contract with him | | |E. g. a main contractor is prearing a tender and he plans to subcontract some of the work. | Privity of Contract (Pg 105) |The general rule is that no one, other than a person who is a party to the contract may be entitled to enforce or be bound by the terms of the contract. – | |Price v Easton (1833) – court held that Price could not succeed, as he was not a party to the contract between the debtor and the Easton.Management | |Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2297 v Seasons Park Ltd (2005) | |Exceptions (Thai Kenaf Co Ltd v Keck Seng (S) Pte Ltd (1993) | |Agency relationship | |Assignment of choses in action – consent of 3 parties | |Letter of Credit | |Agreement |Intention to create legal relations |Consideration | |Is it an offer? Define offer |Is there any intention? |Is it revocation? Via broadcast? | |Was the offer effectively revoked? |Is the agreement legally bind (To place under legal|Is Consideration need to be sufficient but not | |Is it valid acceptance?Communicated |obligation by contract)? |adequate? | |Third party’s conversation? |Is the agreement reached in a business context? |Promissory Estoppel? Talk about the elements, sword| |Postal rude? |(eg. Family, friends) |or shield? | |Is there any provision of information? |Is it (social and domestic) or commercial |Is the consideration moved from promisee? | |Any counter offer? |agreement? | | |Is the offeree aware of offer with motive? | | | |Is the offer lapse? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Notes of Commercial Law Contracts (C3, pg 58) |Nature of contract |- Legal relationship consisting of the right and promises constituting an agreement between the parties that give each party a legal | | |duty to the other and also the right to seek for breach of those duties | | |- Consensus ad idem (meeting of minds); what the parties agree on must be clear and unambiguous and parties must be ad idem. | |Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man (2006) , | | |T2 Networks Pte Ltd v Nasioncom Sdn Bhd (2008) | |Types of Contracts | Oral contracts | | |Written contract provides evidence of the parties’ contractual obligations. | |Forefront Medical Technology (Pte) Ltd v Modern-Pak Pte Ltd (2006) | | |Parol evidence rule = oral evidence not admissible to add to, vary, amend or contradict written contract s 93-94 Evidence Act (refer | | |to Terms) | | |Engelin Teh Practice LLC v Wee Soon Kim Anthony (2004) | . Offer (C3, pg 63) |As the expression to another of a willingness to be bound by stated terms. | |Invitation to treat (pg 64) | |An invitation to others to enter into a negotiation which may eventually lead to the making of an offer. | |An ad is view as invitations to treat. | |Auction without reservations (refer to Barry v Davis (2000) pg 5) |(Offer = Bids made by audience, Acceptance = Auctioneer indicates bids accepted) | |Display of Goods | |Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd (1952) the court held that the display of goods with prices constitutes an | |invitation to treat. The offer is only made when a customer selects the item he wants and brings it to the cashier to pay for it. |Reaffirmed by Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong & Others v Digilandmall com Pte Ltd (2004) | |Advertisements An ad is view as invitations to treat. | |Partridge v Crittenden (1968) | |Provision of Information | |Harvey v Facey (1893) – The court held that there was no contract because provision of information was not an offer .Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean | |(1880) – Seeking for more information is neither a rejection nor acceptance, it was merely an enquiry. | |*compare between offer and invitation to treat, must prove why choose one over the other | |Specific Offeree |An offer is an expression made by one party to another party. For an offer to be effective, the offer must be communicated to the | | |offeree. | Unilateral Contracts |A contract brought into existence by the act of one party in response to a conditional promise by another. Harvela Investments Ltd v | |(involving only one |Royal Trust Co of Canada (Cl) Ltd & Ors (1984)No exchange of promise, only 1 promise (made by offeror). | |side) |Offeree makes no promise, only performs conditions attached to offeror’s promise. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) – Where | |(pg 63) |advertisement contains a promise in return for an act, an offer is intended. (No general rule that an ad cannot be an offer. | |Bi-lateral Co ntracts |An agreement where one party makes a promise to the other party. | |(involving on 2 side |There are duties, rights and considerations on both parties. In other words, performance of the conditions is an acceptance of the | |or both) |offer and this acceptance should be notified. | Termination of Offer (Pg 75) (5 ways) |Withdrawal |Law: Offer can be withdrawn or revoked by the offeror at any time before it is accepted. (When an offer is withdrawn, the offer is said | | |to be revoked). Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v Turegum Insurance Co (2001) | | |Law: Withdrawal must be communicated to offeree (Revocation is only effective when the offeree receives notice of the revocation) Byrne | | |v Van Tienhoven (1880) – It was held that the revocation was not effective until it was received by the plaintiff. Since the offer was | | |accepted prior to the revocation, there was a valid contract. | |Law: Revocation of offer can be communicated by a third party (as long as offeree obtains knowledge of the revocation) (must be a | | |reliable and trustworthy source) Dickinson v Dodds (1876) Law: Fresh Offer (Revocation can also occer if the offer is replaced by a | | |fresh offer) Ban Paribas v Citibank NA (1989) | | |Law: Offer is opened for a fixed period Routledge v Grant (1828) –Rationale is that an offeree cannot enforce an offeror’s promise to | | |keep his offer open unless there is separate contract supported by consideration to do so, such contracts are called options – Tay Joo | | |Sing v Ku Yu Sang – essentially a promise, supported by consideration, to keep an offer open for a specific period of time within which | | |to decide whether or not to enter into the purchase of agreement. | | |Law: Unilateral Contracts Abbot v Lance (1860), it was held that the offeror cannot withdraw his offer once the offeree has started to | | |act. – Dickson Trading(s) Pte Ltd v Transmarco Ltd (1989), obiter dictum, the offeror in a unilateral contract has an obligation not to | | |revoke the offer after the offeree has involved in the performance of the conditions. |Lapse of time |Acceptance after specific period which offeror states that his offer is open = Ineffective | | |If the offer is opened for a specified period, a purported acceptance after that period would not be effective since the offer had | | |lapsed. the court may imply that the offeror has specified the period of offer even if he has not done so expressly. Wee Ah Lian v Teo | | |Siak Weng (1992) | | |- however, if it is clear from the offeror’s conduct and other evidence that the terms of the supposedly lapsed offer continue to govern| | |their relationship after the specified period, then it is still valid and acceptable after the deadline. Panwell Pte Ltd & Anor v | | |Indian Bank (No2) (2002) | | |When no specified period of time is expressed, an offer would lapse after a reasonable amount of time, (depending on the facts of the | | |case). Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co v Montefiore (1866) – the court held that Montefiore could refuse to take up the shares because his | | |offer had lapsed after a reasonable time. | |Failure of |Offer automatically terminated if condition not met | |Condition |An offer may terminate on the occurrence of a specified event if the offer is subjected to the condition that it will do. e. g. erminate| | |if goods are damaged before acceptance, subject to the approval of my lawyer Financings Ltd v Stimson (1962) | |Death |Dickinson v Dodds( if the man who makes an offer dies, the offer cannot be accepted after he is dead. Reynolds v Atherton (1921)( | | |Offeree dies before acceptance, this offer cease to be capable of acceptance. Bradbury v Morgan (1862)( the court held that the death of| | |an offeror did not terminate the offer unless the offeree had notice of the offeror’s death. | 2. Acceptance (C3, pg 67) |Indication by the offeree of his consent to the offer and his intention to form a contract based on the exact terms of the offer | |- Whatever its form, a communication constitutes acceptance only if it is an unconditional expression of assent to the terms of offer.Compaq Computer Asia| |Pte Ltd v Computer Interface(s) Pte Ltd (2004) | |- Conditional Acceptance is treated as no acceptance. Struttgart Auto Pte Ltd v Ng Shwu Yong (2005); | |- Accepts seller’s offer subject to a written contract drafted – Thmoas Plaza (Pte) Ltd v Liquidators of Yaohan Departmental Store Singapore Pte Ltd (in | |liquidation) (2001); | |- Agreenment shall not be final and binding agreement – Cendekia Candranegara Tjiang v Yin Kum Choy & Others (2002) | |Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. 1877) The Court held that the facts and actual conduct of the parties, established the existence of a contract, and | |there having a clear breach of it, Brogden must be held liable upon it. | |Law: Acceptance of unilateral contract is when all the terms o f the contract are fully performed Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) | |Counter |Offeree introduces a new term or varies the terms of an offer (original offeror is free to accept or reject the â€Å"counter offer†) Hyde v Wrench | |Offer |(1840) – The court held that there was no contract because Hyde’s reply was a counter offer which extinguished the earlier offer.When the | | |response is an inquiry or a request of information, it should not be construed as an offer | |Knowledge|Law: Offeree cannot accept in ignorance of the law | |of Offer |offeree must be aware of the offer – Fitch v Snedaker (1868) and R v Clarke (1927) – As long as offeree has knowledge of offer, motive is | | |irrelevant. Once the offeree is aware of the offer, it does not matter that he was prompted to act for reasons other than the desire to accept | | |the offer.William v Carwardine (1833) – the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a reward, she ha d done so with knowledge of the reward| | |even though her motive for giving the information was her own remorse. | | |Cross-offer: Do not constitute to agreement/contract; lack of consensus / meeting of minds between parties at the time of making offer. – Tinn v | | |Hoffman & Co (1873) | |Communica|General Rule: Acceptance must be communicated (Acceptance must actually be received by the offeror) | |tion of |Acceptance effective when communicated/received by offeror. | |Acceptanc|If in writing, it must be physically received by the offeror, and if orally, heard by the offeror. Acceptance must be unconditional and absolute. |e |obiter dictum in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation (1955) and CS Bored Pile System Pte Ltd v Evan Lam &Co Pte Ltd (2006) | | |Powell v Lee (1908) Held that there was no authorized communication of intention to contract on part of the body hence no contract. | |Silence |Silence is only a form of acceptance if both parties agree to it. Silence o f the offeree would not constitute a valid acceptance | | |Felthouse v Bindley (1862)–held that there was no contract between the two parties. The plaintiff had no right to impose a condition that a sale | | |contract would come into existence if the defendant remained silent. | |Exemption case: Both parties agree that the offeree would have a positive obligation to communication only if he wished to reject the offer. | | |Albeit rare in practice, silence is properly be construed as acceptance – Southern Ocean Shipbuilding Co Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG (1993) and | | |Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte Ltd (2004) – defendant’s conduct of paying the reduced rent showed that a contact exists. | |Instantan|Time of acceptance is the time at which the acceptance is communicated to the offeror | |eous |Ithe acceptance will take effect when and where it is received, acceptance must be absolute and unconditional Entores v Miles Far East Corp | Communica|(1955) | |tions |- if got designated info system; receipt when e-record entered the designated info system. Emails, Fax, Telex | | |- if got designated info system but sent elsewhere then is receipt upon retrieval. | | |- if no designated info system; receipt upon entering any info system of addressee. | |Exception|The Postal Rule (ONLY FOR LETTERS OF ACCEPTANCE! ) | |s |- Quenerduaine v Cole (1883) – telegram means speedy reply; not attracted by postal rule.Offeror will claim that it is only valid acceptance | | |when physically received. | | |- Agreement cannot be withdrawn once the post is sent out. Henthorn v Fraser (1892) | | |- Acceptance deemed effective as soon as the letter is posted regardless as to when it reaches the offeror or whether it reaches him at all. | | |Adams v Lindsell (1818) | | |- the court held that the acceptance was communicated and the contract was formed as soon as the plaintiff posted the acceptance letter. Lee | | |Seng Heng v Guard ian Assurance CO Ltd (1932) | | |Waiver of Communication: facts show that the offeror has waived the need for communiation of acceptance; when offer made to whole world | | |(unilateral contract; anyone can accept) – Calill v Carbolic Smoke Ball. | | |( the doing of the act by the offeree may itself be constructed as acceptance, without requiring formal communication to the offeror. | | |Termination of acceptance: Once posted, an acceptance cannot be revoked. – Wenkheim v Arndt (1873) | 3. Consideration (C4, Pg 85) Two Main Rules on Consideration Must move from promisee but need not move to promisor.Tweedle v Atkinson (1861) Need not be adequate but must be sufficient. Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) |Is what each party gives to the other as the agreed price for the other’s promise | |Detriment to one OR Benefit to another | |But it need not move to the promisor Malayan Banking Bhd v Lauw Wisanggeni – A third party who is a stranger to the contra ct may benefit from the contract | |although he may not enforce it. | |Need not be adequate but must be sufficient – Law will not interfere with parties contract so long as consideration is of â€Å"some value† in the eyes of the | |law. |In order for a promise to be enforceable in court, consideration must first be given (exchange of promises would be sufficient consideration)– Dunlop v | |Selfridge (1915) | |Past Consideration is |Refers to an act performed prior to and to that extent independent of, the promises being exchanged (act performed without the | |not valid |reciprocal promise in mind). | | |Past consideration is no consideration The court held that the promise was made after the transaction had already been concluded | | |and therefore past consideration.Roscorla v Thomas (1842) and Teo Song Kwang (alias Richard) v Gnau Lye Chan and Another (2006) | | |To become executed consideration: – Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) and Sim Tony v Ah Ghee (t /a Phil Real Estate &Building Services) | | |(1995) | | |Act done at promisor’s request If the promisor has previously asked the other party to provide goods or services, then a promise | | |made after they are provided will be treated as binding. | | |Contract must otherwise be enforceable Done in biz context and it is clearly understood by both sides that it will be paid for then| | |valid.Re Caseys’s Patent v Casey (1892) held the request to Casey to manage the patent carried an implied promise to pay for that | | |service, hence it was enforceable. | |Consideration must move|The only person who can sue for breach of contract must be the party who has given consideration (promise) – Tweedle v Atkinson | |from the promisee |(1861) – the court held that Tweedle could not enforce the contract between the two fathers because firstly he is not a party of | | |the contract, and secondly, no consideration flowed from him. | | |Consideration need not move to the promisor; 3rd party can may benefit although may not enforce it. Malayan Banking Bhd v Lauw | | |Wisanggeni | |Sufficient, |- Law will not inquire to the fairness of consideration, as long as the parties agree to it willingly – Lam Hong Leong Aluminium | |Need not be Adequate; |Pte Ltd v Lian Teck Huat Consruction Pte Ltd and Another (2003) | |Adequacy of |- Law does not measure value (once the subject of exchange is recognized in law as suitable consideration, quantity is irrelevant) | |Consideration |- Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprise Pte Ltd v Navalmar UK Ltd (No2) (2003) and Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) –the | | |consideration included the wrappers even though they were of no value to Nestle. | | |Thomas v Thomas (1842) – The court held that the nominal rent was sufficient consideration but the husband’s wishes were | | |irrelevant; motive is not the same thing as consideration. |Sufficiency of |A promise not to enforce a Claim is Good Consideration Promise not to sue or enforce a valid claim or settlement of legal action = | |Consideration |sufficient consideration Lam Hong Leong Aluminium Pte Ltd v Lian Teck Huat Consruction Pte Ltd and Another (2003) and Alliance Bank| | |Ltd v Broom (1864) Normally, banks would not promise to enforce debt but is not done here. For not suing, considerations shown ( | | |binding agreement to provide security. | |Sufficient |Forbearance to sue |A promise to forbear from suing or enforcing a valid claim can constitute sufficient or valuable | | | |consideration. Alliance Bank Ltd v Broom (1864).K-Rex Finance Ltd v Cheng Chih Cheng (1993) – The court | | | |spoke the words of Cockburn CJ in Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1870). | | | |The same applies to a compromise of a legal action. The req. is that the legal action must be reasonable and| | | |not frivolous, that the claimant has an honest belief that in the chance of success of the claim and that | | | |the claimant h as not concealed from the other party any fact which, to the claimant’s knowledge, might | | | |affect its validity.Miles v New Zealand Alford Estate Co (1886) | | |Performance of |The Eurymedon (1975) – The Privy Council held that even though the defendant was already contractually bound| | |existing contractual |to a third party to do so, the defendant’s act of unloading the ship formed good consideration for the | | |duty to third party |contract with the plaintiff. This was also clarified in Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) by the HOL. This was | | | |also accepted in the Singapore High Court in SSAB Oxelosund AB v Xendral Trading Pte Ltd (1992). | |Moral obligation & |Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) – The court rejected the plaintiff’s view and held that moral obligation is | | |motives |insufficient consideration for a fresh promise. | |Insufficient |Vague or insubstantial|White v Bluett (1853) – The court held that Bluett’s promise was no thing more than a promise â€Å"not to bore | | |consideration |his father†. As such it was too vague(fake) and was insufficient consideration for the alleged discharge by | | | |his father. | | |Performance of |Collins v Godefroy (1831) –Performance of an existing public duty is not valid consideration. | |existing public duty |Glassbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan City Council (1925)- If the court finds the promisee did something more that| | | |required by an existing public duty, then it may be sufficient. | | |Performance of |Stilk v Myrick (1809) – It was held that there was no consideration for the captain’s promise because the | | |existing contractual |remaining crew did what they were contractually required. Two sailors deserting were within the usual | | |duty |emergencies found in such a voyage. | | |However, if it is more than what is contractually required, that may constitute good consideration – Hartley| | | |v Ponsonby (1857) and William s v Roffey Bros (1991) – The English Court of Appeal held that as long as the | | | |extra payment was not given under duress or fraud, the oral promise was enforceable because the defendant | | | |obtained â€Å"practical benefits† from the plaintiff’s work. The benefit was that they would not be liable under| | | |the main contract for late completion. | | |Rule in Pinnel’s Case |Pinnel’s case is authority for the proposition that payment of a lesser sum without anything extra is not a | | | |good consideration. | | |- It would be good consideration provided with a gift (can be anything, even time) is given as the gift | | | |might be more beneficial than the money. -But if the person asks me pay lesser, then cannot sue. – If I | | | |accepted a smaller amount, after that I decided to sue again, CAN! Provided no gift! | | | |Pinnel’s Case (1602) – The part payment of a debt does not discharge the entire debt unless the part p ayment| | | |was made at the request of the creditor and the payment was made earlier, at a different place, or in | | | |conjunction with some other valuable consideration.Foakes v Beer (1884) affirmed Pinnel’s Case – the HOL | | | |held that Beer’s promise not to take further action was not supported by consideration. She could claim the | | | |money. ( in Euro-Asia Realty Pte Ltd v Mayfair Investment Pte Ltd (2001), District Court in Singapore | | | |endorsed the rule in Foakes v Beer and held favor in creditor. | | |Promissory Estoppel is an equitable doctrine whose origin may be traced to Lord Cairns in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877). | | |When p. e. is established, the court may enforce a promise despite the fact that there was no consideration. Central London | | |Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd (1947) | | |Elements (Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd (1947) and D&C Builders v Rees (1966)) | | |1)Parties must have existin g legal relationship 2)Clear and unequivocal promise which affects the legal relationship 3)Promisee | | |relied upon promise and altered his position 4)Inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise. | |Promissory Estoppel |Cause of action | |(For no consideration) |When the promisor gives reasonable notice of his intention to revert to the original legal relationship, the original relationship | | |is restored. The effect of p. e. is to suspend promisor’s rights temporarily.Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co| | |Ltd (1995) However, the promise could become ‘final and irrevocable if the promisee cannot resume his position. † Ajayi v R T | | |Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd (1964) | | |A defensive tool | | |This means that it can only be raised as a shield and not a sword, i. e. a defense against a claim and not to commence a suit.Combe| | |v Combe (1951) (people sue you then can use ) Assoland Construction Pte Ltd v Malayan Credit Properties Pt e Ltd (1993) and Lai Yew | | |Tay Pte Ltd v Pilecon Engineering BHd (2002) | | | | 4. Intention to Create Legal Relations (Pg 17) |The test is whether a reasonable person viewing all the circumstances of the case would consider that the promisor intended his promise to have legal | |consequences. objective test† (objectively ascertained) | |Social and |General presumption = no legal intention | |Domestic |Balfour v Balfour (1919) and Jones v Padavatton (1969) – An agreement is not legally binding unless the parties intend that each will | |Agreements |accept the lefal consequences for its breach. Choo Tiong Hin v Choo Hock Swee (1959) – the plaintiff’s promises were not enforceable | | |because the lack of intention to create legal relations. De Cruz Andrea Heidi v Guangzhou Yuzhitang Health Products Co Ltd and Others | | |(2003) -Friend doing a favor even though secret profit or commission is earned. | |However in Merritt v Merritt (1970) and Wakeling v Ripley– The English Court of Appeal found the necessary intention and held that the | | |wife succeeded in her claim for breach of contract. | |Commercial |General presumption = Legal intention | |Agreements |- There is necessary intention to create legal relations. Edwards v Skyway Ltd (1964) – The court held that Skyways was legally bound. | | |Binding but unenforceable | | |Honour Clauses – When parties have expressly stated that their agreement is not to be legally binding. Rose &Frank Co v J R Crompton | | |&Bros Ltd (1925) | | |Exceptions (not legally binding): | | |Letter of Comfort (pg 17) ( may be binding depending on its terms | | |usually a document supplied by a 3rd party to a creditor indicating a concern to ensure that a debtor meets his obligations to the | | |creditor. | | |Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysian Mining Corporation Berhad (1989) Court only found a moral not legal obligation. refer to pg 17) | | |Letter of Intent (LOI) (pg 17) | | |A de vice by which one indicates to another of his intention to enter into a contract with him | | |E. g. a main contractor is prearing a tender and he plans to subcontract some of the work. | Privity of Contract (Pg 105) |The general rule is that no one, other than a person who is a party to the contract may be entitled to enforce or be bound by the terms of the contract. – | |Price v Easton (1833) – court held that Price could not succeed, as he was not a party to the contract between the debtor and the Easton.Management | |Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2297 v Seasons Park Ltd (2005) | |Exceptions (Thai Kenaf Co Ltd v Keck Seng (S) Pte Ltd (1993) | |Agency relationship | |Assignment of choses in action – consent of 3 parties | |Letter of Credit | |Agreement |Intention to create legal relations |Consideration | |Is it an offer? Define offer |Is there any intention? |Is it revocation? Via broadcast? | |Was the offer effectively revoked? |Is the agreement legally bind (To place under legal|Is Consideration need to be sufficient but not | |Is it valid acceptance?Communicated |obligation by contract)? |adequate? | |Third party’s conversation? |Is the agreement reached in a business context? |Promissory Estoppel? Talk about the elements, sword| |Postal rude? |(eg. Family, friends) |or shield? | |Is there any provision of information? |Is it (social and domestic) or commercial |Is the consideration moved from promisee? | |Any counter offer? |agreement? | | |Is the offeree aware of offer with motive? | | | |Is the offer lapse? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

The Case For and Against Assisted Dying - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 4 Words: 1284 Downloads: 5 Date added: 2019/05/31 Category Law Essay Level High school Tags: Assisted Suicide Essay Did you like this example? In homes across the world, millions of victims are suffering from fatal and terminal illnesses.With death knocking on their door, should these people have to endure pain and misery knowing what is to come? The answers to these questions are very controversial. Furthermore, there is a greater question to be answered†should these people have the right and option to end the relentless pain and agony through physician assisted death? Physician-Assisted Suicide PAS is highly contentious because it induces conflict of several moral and ethical questions such as who is the true director of our lives. Is suicide an individual choice and should the highest priority to humans be alleviating pain or do we suffer for a purpose? Is suicide a purely individual choice? Having analyzed and even experience the effects of physician assisted suicide, I promote and fully support its legality and provisions.. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Case For and Against Assisted Dying" essay for you Create order Physician assisted suicide PAS or physician assisted death PAD is the voluntary ending of oners life primarily by taking a lethal substance (usually a barbiturate) prescribed by a physician (Friend, Mary, Louanne, 2011, p. 110). In each case, the patient has explicitly come to the conclusion to expedite his or her own death owed to a terminal illness.? Four of fifty states in the United States have legalized physician assisted suicide: Oregon, Washington, Montana, and most recently Vermont (May 2013). On Nov. 8, 1994, Oregon was first to legalized physician assisted death. Through ballot measure, the Death with Dignity Act legalized the process of physician assisted death but under strict protocol. Similarly, the state of Washington passed Ballot Initiative 1000 and Vermont passed the Patient Choice and Control act†both similar acts legalizing physician assisted suicide. However, Montanars State Supreme Court ruling in Baxter v. Montana allows physician assisted death with no legal protocol in place (Procon.org., 2012). The states permitting PAS are obligated to follow a list of set conditions: the patient should be a resident of the said state and 18 years of age or older. Secondly, the patient should be capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him or herself. Thirdly, the patient must be diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. Interested patients must also provide the request for termination in writing to the physician. In addition, physicians are expected to inform patients to alternative means of care including hospice care and other medications. Only after precautions evaluation, the laws then permit patients to make the ultimate life ending decision. A pathologist from Michigan, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was one of the first to participate in PAS (Strate, Zalman Hunter, 2005, p. 25). There are documented writings discussing the severity of his patients: those who seek him out have deteriorated by slow, painful degrees and wish to exit from their infernos on Earth before they deteriorate cognitively and/or choke to death (Zeldisrs, 2005 p. 130). Many of his patients explain how they feel their own body withdraw and turn on itself; and not even being able to eat or go to the bathroom (Friend, Mary and Louanne, 2011, p. 116). stress that dignity and integrity are very personal matters; it is probable that being dependent on others to perform basic activities of daily living threaten a patientrs dignity and thus determine when an explicit request for PAS is made. Perhaps to deny someone the ability to limit their suffering is cruel. My main argument in support of PAS bears the concept that every capable human being has the right to decide on the way he or should wants to live. This very definition of right of independence should be protected and extended to individuals suffering from terminal conditions and therefore should possess jurisdiction of how and when they die (Weir, 2002, p. 33). Every individual should have the choice to experience a quality life and turn away any suffering and pain. Therefore, terminally ill patients should be allowed to die in dignity without independence and control being stripped from them. In addition, one may say that the sanctity of life is greatly reduced upon gaining the diagnoses of an serious sickness (Kopelman Allen, 2001, p. 203). After a diagnoses of a terminal disease, life is consumed by the master status of sickly experience. It will be defined by continuous hospital visits and long hospital activity such as surgeries. Lives of patients never are the same; reduced to a bed ridden life facing sympathies from close family and friends. I recently had the opportunity to experience my grandmother go through this dreadful lifestyle until her demise a week ago. I truly believe that the agony and torment is not worth going through knowing that death is imminent. Terminal illness has the propensity to reduce individuals from strong, flexible and respected individuals to feeble suffering individuals who completely contingent on family or nurses for dehumanizing aspects of survival. Moreover, the mental capacity, hearing, vision, and other sense began to deteriorate swiftly and drastically. My family and I had to witness this worsening state, as do other families. I can truly say it was traumatic even for me. I can only remember a few vivid and lively experiences of my grandmother, due the fact that her image in her last months cloud my mind. When the patient eventually dies, the only memories left with the family are the sorry state of their loved one who died a sorry death (Stevens Jr., Kenneth R. 2006 p. 200). Why should anyone who lived a great and dignified life end in such a despondent state? To avoid such undignified death, PAD for terminally ill patients should be accepted and legalized in all states. In contrast, I have found that there are many arguments that are for the prohibition of PAS. One that seems to be the more obvious one is that of health care providers. The medical community is very outspoken on this topic; it goes against the role of health care providers as healers. A health care providerrs primary concern is to first cause no harm (Kopelman, L. M., Allen, K. D. 2001, p. 203). Physician assisted suicide obliterates the confidence one should have between their doctor. What will a patient think if it is known that their doctor helped and promoted someone elses death? Of course, sometimes a doctor can not cure a disease, but how would a patient feel knowing that the doctor gave up on another patient and persisted the suicide to occur. Would this idea make more than a few patients uncomfortable? Furthermore, it has been argued that PAS distorts the healing purpose of medicine (American Medical Association 1992). If physicians help kill patients, it can be seen as harm . Even though this argument is sound and does cause many problems, case must be weighed against the needs of the individual patient. Another reason many are against PAS is that they believe it could lead to involuntary euthanasia (Stevens Jr., Kenneth R. 2006, p. 198) There is a fear that select groups and ethnicities would be targeted. Therefore, in order to prevent the spread of euthanasia, non-supporters (of PAS) believe that PAS should be prevented from being deemed lawful. There are many arguments for and against assisted suicide, the answer of whether it is right or wrong remains unanswered. For one, PAS is an ethical issue that is dependent on a personrs values, morals, religion, and experiences. In general, deciding whether one is to live or die is a sensitive topic and can stir up strong emotions and opinions. I believe the ending of oners life should be left in the hands of that one individual and nobody else. People say all the time It is your life, do with it as you want, but why should this expression change when it is applied to death? Individuals should be free to determine.