The Key to Patience Essay Example for Free

The Key to Patience Essay Patience is a word that I constantly hear from my mother. My mother’s days as a young child were rough and not as convenient as things are now. Back in the 1970’s, in Dominican Republic there wasn’t such things as iPad’s, iPod’s and Iphone’s. Although it wasn’t the best life, she always had patience with everything she did and it truly brought her a long way. In the book â€Å"Life Lessons†, patience is one of the topics that the author Elizabeth Kubler ‘Ross and David Kessler mentions. It discusses on how patience affects our lives and the consequences in not having patience. I myself know I don’t have all the patience in the world however, by reading this book I actually think I’m not so bad. Elizabeth mentions how one of the hardest and frustrating lessons in life is realizing that we don’t always get what we want. You may want something now but you may not get it for a while. One of my favorite lines in this chapter is â€Å"In this modern world, people are not used to living in discomfort.† I adore that line because it is absolutely true! We all expect our results quickly and were all used to having things done immediately. For instance, if were hungry there’s always food available, from microwave dinners to all night grocery stores and restaurants. I’ve learned that according to the book, we need to develop faith and believe that everything will be okay. Trying not to always be in control of the situation and just letting things happen when there supposed to happen is what we need to do. In this world patience is crucial. For example, waiting in line to purchase items, our job, cooking, and people! Increasing the input of patience in everyone will bring out a better atmosphere and create a healthier way to work things out.

My Good and Bad Habits :: Personal Narrative Essays

My Good and Bad Habits A habit can be many things, some good, some not so good. Everyone has habits that they would like to change and maybe improve upon. I believe the majority of habits I have are good ones but some are not. These bad habits are the ones I will talk about. Smoking is a bad habit that is not only harmful to myself, but also to the people around me, namely my wife and children. They are the ones that receive the most harmful and the most concentrated amounts of smoke. I inhale through a filter, my wife and children do not. Another of my irritating and potentially harmful habits is my ability to let anger build up inside and redirect it to another source. The main reason that I say that this is potentially harmful is that when a man lets his anger build up over an extended length of time he eventually becomes a bomb, ready to explode at any time. This anger could show up at any time and be redirected toward anything, such as cars, other people, or things in the home. After the birth of my first child, I had to learn to develop constructive ways to vent anger. One of those ways was to go off alone, count to ten, and think about what it was that made me angry. After I discovered the root of my anger, I often asked myself, "Will it do me or anyone else any good to be angry?", and, "Will being angry do anything to solve the problem", and the answer to both questions was usually no. By the time I had done the walking and thinking, I was usually not angry anymore. Even in light of these habits I believe the worst habit is my use of foul language. I know that "four letter words" are only a sign of a limited vocabulary but old habits die hard. I believe I have gotten better after my son was born, due to the fact that it seemed he could repeat the "s" word more plainly than he could say "ball" and usually at the most inopportune times.

Contract Law

Introduction In today’s economic climate businesses often exert commercial pressure during contract negotiation stages. This is a normal part of the process and parties to a contract generally know when pressure being exerted is lawful. Although there is a difference between commercial negotiation and illegitimate pressure, it is often difficult to distinguish between the two. Furthermore, because economic duress can arise from pressure that is not in itself unlawful, parties may be unaware that the pressure they are subjecting a party to a contract is actually economic duress. Despite this, if a court finds that one party to a contract has exerted illegitimate pressure on another party, the innocent party may be able to establish a claim of economic duress. Given how uncertain the economy is at present, hard bargaining is a common form of negotiation, though it is vital that businesses are aware of the risks when exerting pressure that is likely to be deemed illegitimate. It is unclear ho w this distinction can be made, nonetheless, which suggests that further clarity is needed within this area. This study intends to explain the developments that have taken place in the doctrine of economic duress and why the courts perceived a need for a more robust approach in light of the Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 case. Duress Duress is a common law defence that allows a contract to be set aside in instances where one party has been subjected to force or pressure from the other party to enter into the contract. Duress has been defined as â€Å"making someone do something against his will, or making someone perform an illegal act, by using threats, coercion or other illicit means† (Dictionary, 2014: 1). Duress is basically the use of unlawful means to force another to perform an act by either threatening them or performing an act of violence. The party claiming duress will be required to show that they did not have a choice but to enter into the contract (Cserne, 2009: 57). Economic duress, on the other hand, is a fairly new phenomenon that is becoming an important tool for determining whether a contract that has been entered into is enforceable or not. Economic duress happens when a person’s economic interests are damaged from being forced or coerced into entering into a contract. This type o f duress has been defined as the â€Å"unlawful use of economic pressure and/or threats intended to overcome the free will of a person, in order to force him or her to an involuntary agreement or to do something that he or she would not otherwise do† (Business Dictionary, 2014, 1). Economic duress is essentially a contract law defence that allows a person to dispute the formation of a binding contract by arguing that that they were forced to enter into the contract. Previously, parties to a contract could only rely on the doctrine of consideration for protection when they were being subjected to economic duress. Consideration is the price that one party will pay for another party’s promise (Card et al; 2003: 63); Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B&Ad 950. The doctrine of consideration does not allow parties in a contract to insist on further payments to perform tasks they are already required to perform under the contract simply because they are in a stronger bargaining pos ition; Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317. Economic Duress and Commercial Pressure It is now widely accepted by the courts that undue commercial pressure can amount to duress. The doctrine of economic duress has evolved significantly from various trade union decisions including; Universe Tankships v International Workers Federation (â€Å"The Universe Sentinel†) [1983] 1 AC 366 and Dimskal Shipping v International Works Federation (â€Å"The Evia Luck†) [1992] 2 AC 152. In The Universe Sentinel, a trade union, which had blacklisted a ship, forced the owner to provide payment before they would remove the ship from the black list. As there would have been disastrous consequences if the ship could not sail, the owner made the payment. Because the ship owner had no other practical choice but to make the payment, he later brought a successful claim for the recovery of the money by establishing economic duress. Similarly, in The Evia Luck a trade union insisted that a ship owner signed various contractual documents so that his ship could sail, which was fou nd by the court to be a form of economic duress. In order to make an economic duress claim, there are a number of elements the claimant will need to be established. These are; a) that the pressure was illegitimate; b) that the pressure was a significant cause that induced the claimant to enter into the contract; and c) that the practical effect of the pressures means that the claimant has no other choice but to enter into the contract (Ohrenstein, 2013: 2). The claimant will be entitled to avoid the contract and claim restitution of any monies that have been paid under it if these elements can be established. In deciding what amount to illegitimate pressure, the court will take a range of factors into account. For example, in DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services ASA [2000] EWHC 185 it was made clear that the court will be required to consider whether the breach of contract was an actual or threatened breach; whether the person whom exerts the pressure has acted in good or bad faith; whether the claimant had any real or practical alternative but to give in to the pressure; whether the claimant protested at the time; and whether the claimant sought to rely on the contract. One of the most successful forms of economic duress is a threat to breach a contract. In Siboen and The Sibotre [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 293 charterers of two ships threatened to break their charterparties by refusing to pay the agreed charter rate if the rate was not lowered. The owners of the ships had been informed that the charterers had no substantial assets and that the charterers would otherwise go into liquidation if the charter rates were not lowered. This information was not actually true but it caused the owners to reduce the rates nevertheless. It was found that economic duress could apply to this situation as all of the relevant factors were present. Since this decision, the courts seem to have accepted that economic duress is coercive and therefore worthy of the same relief as duress to the person or property (Chen-Wishart, 2012: 316). In spite of this, the practical application of economic duress has been subject to much confusion and it has been questioned when, if ever, renegotiations should be enforced. It would seem, under the doctrine of consideration, that renegotiations can never be enforced on the basis that â€Å"no additional consideration supports the promise to pay more or accept less† (Chen-Wishart, 2012: 316). Under the promissory estoppel doctrine, the promise to pay the same for less can be enforced in limited circumstances, though this does not apply if illegitimate pressure has been exerted. Therefore, if it can be demonstrated that illegitimate pressure has been applied to the renegotiation of a contract, that contract will not be enforceable. Because commercial contracts are extremely competitive, it is likely to be the case that some form of pressure will always be applied. Though the question to be determined is whether the pressure that has been applied is legitimate or not. This is l ikely to be extremely problematic and thus cause a great deal of complexity for the courts. As exemplified in the cases above, threats to blacklist a ship and refuse its release may constitute duress. Further examples of where economic duress has occurred can be seen in the cases of North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd [1979] QB 705 and Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] UKPC 17 where threats to terminate a contract in the absence of a renegotiation is also illegitimate unless it can be legally justified. What will be deemed â€Å"legally justified† is largely a matter to be determined based upon individual facts and circumstances, though there is likely to remain a lot of confliction in this area. In Williams v Roffey Brothers Ltd [1991] EWCA Civ 5 the Stilk case was severely limited by the courts. Here, the consideration requirement was extended to include â€Å"practical benefits† and thereby covered the promise to perform an existing contract. Here, a number of contractors promised to refurbish 27 flats with a sub-contractor performing the carpentry. Before the flats were finished, the sub-contractor realised that he had under-priced the contract and was resultantly facing financial difficulty. The main contractors offered the sub-contractor a financial inducement to finish the contract on time. It is trite law that consideration is needed for a party to that contract to be able to sue on it. Since the sub-contractor was doing no more than he was already bound to do under the contract, consideration was lacking. Surprisingly, it was held by the court that because the contractors had received a benefit from the sub-contractor, in that they avoided the penalty clause of the main contract, the sub-contractors claim was successful. This did not mean that consideration was present as the benefit did not move from the promisee, although there was a clear departure from the orthodox principle of consideration principle. The doctr ine of consideration maintains that a contract will not be supported by the performance of an existing duty unless that duty exists by virtue of a third party contract (Noble, 1991: 141). This decision conflicts with the decision in Stilk which demonstrated that consideration needs to be of economic value to be deemed good consideration and that it needs to move from the promise as also shown in; White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36; Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851; Shadwell v Shadwell (1860) 9 CBNS 159; and Scotson v Pegg (Scotson v Pegg (1861) 6 H & N 295). It has also been argued by Cheshire et al; that; â€Å"the time has come to recognise formally the alternative definition of consideration and admit that the rationale behind the refusal to enforce some types of consideration is pure policy† (Cheshire et al; 2012; 77). Arguably, it appears that the consideration principle is rather outmoded and in need of reform so that a more robust approach to economic duress can be taken by the courts. At present, much confusion arises as to when economic duress can be used as a defence. Judges thus need to err on the side of caution to prevent commercial pressure being mistaken for economic duress and vice versa. Still, as stressed by the court in Adam v Opel Gmbh v Mitras Automotive [2007] EWHC 3481; â€Å"the list of matters to be considered in assessing legitimacy is not exhaustive, and the weight to be attached to each of them will depend on the facts of the individual case.† Furthermore, it was also stated in the case that the decision to be made will involve some element of value judgement when considering whether the pressure that was exerted on the claimant crossed the line from that which must be accepted in normal robust commercial bargaining. It is clear from the decision in this case that the courts have made some attempts to provide clarity in this area and that each case will be decided on its own facts. In the more recent case of Kolmar Group AG v Traxpo Enterprises Pyt Ltd [2010] EWHC 113 it was evidenced that a contract variation between a supplier and a customer will unlikely amount to duress if the supplier is unable to perform a contract as a result of financial difficulties that will cause the supplier to become insolvent. Another problem that arises when it comes to economic duress is whether lawful conduct can amount to illegitimate pressure. Whilst it is possible, it is also extremely rare as shown in CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1993] EWCA Civ 19; GMAC Commercial Credit Ltd v Dearden [2002] All ER (D) 440 (May) and Wright v HSBC Bank plc [2006] EWHC 930 QB. Consequently, economic duress will continue to pose many problems as there will always be a debate as to whether particular circumstances may or may not give rise to a claim for economic duress. Because of the uncertainty within this area, it is evident that a more robust approach needs to be taken so that greater clarity and consistency can be provided. Economic duress has also been criticised for being causation-led, thereby meaning that a lack of causation will prevent a successful claim from being made. In Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] UKPC 2 it was pointed out by Lord Scarman that in deciding whether causation was present, it will need to be considered whether the claimant; a) protested; b) had a practical alternative open to him; c) received independent advice; and d) acted promptly. This decision has been criticised for being inconclusive and failing to take into account the fact that claimants may not think that there is any point in protesting. This was recognised by Chen-Wis hart when it was argued that; â€Å"these factors are inconclusive. The victim may not protest because he sees no point in it or he may not wish to antagonise the coercing party whose performance he needs† (Chen-Wishart, 2012: 318). It is clear that the facts and circumstances of each case will be the determining factor as to whether the claimant has suffered economic duress or not. Because of the uncertainty that exists in this area, however, it is often difficult for those entering into commercial contracts to acknowledge that they are exerting pressure that is considered illegitimate, especially when there is a possibility that lawful pressure will also be capable of amounting to economic duress. As a result of this, Young warns against exerting commercial pressure that the courts may possibly consider economic duress: â€Å"Abusing your upper hand can leave the strong open to claims† (Young, 2012: 23). Conclusion Overall, whilst the doctrine of duress is well established in English law, the doctrine of economic duress still remains largely uncertain. This generally arises from the difficulty of distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate economic duress. As such, it is up to the courts to decide when a person’s economic interests have been damaged from being forced or coerced into entering into a contract. Hence, the court will be required to consider whether the re-negotiation of the terms of the contract were lawful and whether the person being subjected to the economic duress, should be entitled to rescind the contract that they entered into. This is an important defence in ensuring that parties to a contract have equal bargaining power. Nevertheless, the practical application of economic duress has been subject to much confusion over the years, which may result from the reasoning that has been provided by the courts. There appears to be a lack of consistency that is being pr ovided, which highlights the need for future reform to this area. Whilst there is a difference between commercial negotiation and illegitimate pressure, it has proven extremely difficult to distinguish between the two, especially since lawful conduct can also amount to illegitimate pressure. In order to provide clarity to this area, it seems as though a more robust approach is therefore needed by the courts. References Business Dictionary. (2014) Economic Duress, [Online] Available: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/economic-duress.html [07 July 2014]. Card, R. Murdoch, J. and Murdoch, S. (2003) Estate Management Law, OUP, 6th Edition. Carr, N. (2011) Walking the Line – The Balance Between Legitimate Negotiation and Economic Duress, Available [Online]: [07 July 2014]. Chen-Wishart, M. (2012) Contract Law, Oxford University Press. Cserne, P. (2009) Duress in Contracts: An Economic Analysis, Contract Law and Economics, Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Furmston, M. P. Cheshire, G C. and Fifoot, C H. (2012) Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract, Oxford University Press: London. Dictionary. (2014) Duress, [Online], Available: http://www.yourdictionary.com/duress [07 July 2014]. Noble, M. (1991) For Your Consideration, New Law Journal, Volume 141, Issue 1529. Ohrenstein, D. (2013) Key Developments in Contract Law: Economic Duress, Radcliffe Chambers, [Online] Available: http://www.radcliffechambers.com/media/Misc_Articles/Key_Developments_in_Contract_Law_-_Economic_Duress_2013.pdf [07 July 2014]. Young, A. (2012) When Pressure Turns to Duress, Construction Law Journal, Volume 23, Issue 5. Cases Adam v Opel Gmbh v Mitras Automotive [2007] EWHC 3481 Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B&Ad 950 CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1993] EWCA Civ 19 Dimskal Shipping v International Works Federation (â€Å"The Evia Luck†) [1992] 2 AC 152 DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services ASA [2000] EWHC 185 GMAC Commercial Credit Ltd v Dearden [2002] All ER (D) 440 (May) Kolmar Group AG v Traxpo Enterprises Pyt Ltd [2010] EWHC 113 North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd [1979] QB 705 Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] UKPC 17 Scotson v Pegg (Scotson v Pegg (1861) 6 H & N 295) Shadwell v Shadwell (1860) 9 CBNS 159 Siboen and The Sibotre [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 293 Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317 Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851 Universe Tankships v International Workers Federation (â€Å"The Universe Sentinel†) [1983] 1 AC 366 White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36 Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 Wright v HSBC Bank plc [2006] EWHC 930 QB Contract Law Introduction In today’s economic climate businesses often exert commercial pressure during contract negotiation stages. This is a normal part of the process and parties to a contract generally know when pressure being exerted is lawful. Although there is a difference between commercial negotiation and illegitimate pressure, it is often difficult to distinguish between the two. Furthermore, because economic duress can arise from pressure that is not in itself unlawful, parties may be unaware that the pressure they are subjecting a party to a contract is actually economic duress. Despite this, if a court finds that one party to a contract has exerted illegitimate pressure on another party, the innocent party may be able to establish a claim of economic duress. Given how uncertain the economy is at present, hard bargaining is a common form of negotiation, though it is vital that businesses are aware of the risks when exerting pressure that is likely to be deemed illegitimate. It is unclear ho w this distinction can be made, nonetheless, which suggests that further clarity is needed within this area. This study intends to explain the developments that have taken place in the doctrine of economic duress and why the courts perceived a need for a more robust approach in light of the Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 case. Duress Duress is a common law defence that allows a contract to be set aside in instances where one party has been subjected to force or pressure from the other party to enter into the contract. Duress has been defined as â€Å"making someone do something against his will, or making someone perform an illegal act, by using threats, coercion or other illicit means† (Dictionary, 2014: 1). Duress is basically the use of unlawful means to force another to perform an act by either threatening them or performing an act of violence. The party claiming duress will be required to show that they did not have a choice but to enter into the contract (Cserne, 2009: 57). Economic duress, on the other hand, is a fairly new phenomenon that is becoming an important tool for determining whether a contract that has been entered into is enforceable or not. Economic duress happens when a person’s economic interests are damaged from being forced or coerced into entering into a contract. This type o f duress has been defined as the â€Å"unlawful use of economic pressure and/or threats intended to overcome the free will of a person, in order to force him or her to an involuntary agreement or to do something that he or she would not otherwise do† (Business Dictionary, 2014, 1). Economic duress is essentially a contract law defence that allows a person to dispute the formation of a binding contract by arguing that that they were forced to enter into the contract. Previously, parties to a contract could only rely on the doctrine of consideration for protection when they were being subjected to economic duress. Consideration is the price that one party will pay for another party’s promise (Card et al; 2003: 63); Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B&Ad 950. The doctrine of consideration does not allow parties in a contract to insist on further payments to perform tasks they are already required to perform under the contract simply because they are in a stronger bargaining pos ition; Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317. Economic Duress and Commercial Pressure It is now widely accepted by the courts that undue commercial pressure can amount to duress. The doctrine of economic duress has evolved significantly from various trade union decisions including; Universe Tankships v International Workers Federation (â€Å"The Universe Sentinel†) [1983] 1 AC 366 and Dimskal Shipping v International Works Federation (â€Å"The Evia Luck†) [1992] 2 AC 152. In The Universe Sentinel, a trade union, which had blacklisted a ship, forced the owner to provide payment before they would remove the ship from the black list. As there would have been disastrous consequences if the ship could not sail, the owner made the payment. Because the ship owner had no other practical choice but to make the payment, he later brought a successful claim for the recovery of the money by establishing economic duress. Similarly, in The Evia Luck a trade union insisted that a ship owner signed various contractual documents so that his ship could sail, which was fou nd by the court to be a form of economic duress. In order to make an economic duress claim, there are a number of elements the claimant will need to be established. These are; a) that the pressure was illegitimate; b) that the pressure was a significant cause that induced the claimant to enter into the contract; and c) that the practical effect of the pressures means that the claimant has no other choice but to enter into the contract (Ohrenstein, 2013: 2). The claimant will be entitled to avoid the contract and claim restitution of any monies that have been paid under it if these elements can be established. In deciding what amount to illegitimate pressure, the court will take a range of factors into account. For example, in DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services ASA [2000] EWHC 185 it was made clear that the court will be required to consider whether the breach of contract was an actual or threatened breach; whether the person whom exerts the pressure has acted in good or bad faith; whether the claimant had any real or practical alternative but to give in to the pressure; whether the claimant protested at the time; and whether the claimant sought to rely on the contract. One of the most successful forms of economic duress is a threat to breach a contract. In Siboen and The Sibotre [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 293 charterers of two ships threatened to break their charterparties by refusing to pay the agreed charter rate if the rate was not lowered. The owners of the ships had been informed that the charterers had no substantial assets and that the charterers would otherwise go into liquidation if the charter rates were not lowered. This information was not actually true but it caused the owners to reduce the rates nevertheless. It was found that economic duress could apply to this situation as all of the relevant factors were present. Since this decision, the courts seem to have accepted that economic duress is coercive and therefore worthy of the same relief as duress to the person or property (Chen-Wishart, 2012: 316). In spite of this, the practical application of economic duress has been subject to much confusion and it has been questioned when, if ever, renegotiations should be enforced. It would seem, under the doctrine of consideration, that renegotiations can never be enforced on the basis that â€Å"no additional consideration supports the promise to pay more or accept less† (Chen-Wishart, 2012: 316). Under the promissory estoppel doctrine, the promise to pay the same for less can be enforced in limited circumstances, though this does not apply if illegitimate pressure has been exerted. Therefore, if it can be demonstrated that illegitimate pressure has been applied to the renegotiation of a contract, that contract will not be enforceable. Because commercial contracts are extremely competitive, it is likely to be the case that some form of pressure will always be applied. Though the question to be determined is whether the pressure that has been applied is legitimate or not. This is l ikely to be extremely problematic and thus cause a great deal of complexity for the courts. As exemplified in the cases above, threats to blacklist a ship and refuse its release may constitute duress. Further examples of where economic duress has occurred can be seen in the cases of North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd [1979] QB 705 and Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] UKPC 17 where threats to terminate a contract in the absence of a renegotiation is also illegitimate unless it can be legally justified. What will be deemed â€Å"legally justified† is largely a matter to be determined based upon individual facts and circumstances, though there is likely to remain a lot of confliction in this area. In Williams v Roffey Brothers Ltd [1991] EWCA Civ 5 the Stilk case was severely limited by the courts. Here, the consideration requirement was extended to include â€Å"practical benefits† and thereby covered the promise to perform an existing contract. Here, a number of contractors promised to refurbish 27 flats with a sub-contractor performing the carpentry. Before the flats were finished, the sub-contractor realised that he had under-priced the contract and was resultantly facing financial difficulty. The main contractors offered the sub-contractor a financial inducement to finish the contract on time. It is trite law that consideration is needed for a party to that contract to be able to sue on it. Since the sub-contractor was doing no more than he was already bound to do under the contract, consideration was lacking. Surprisingly, it was held by the court that because the contractors had received a benefit from the sub-contractor, in that they avoided the penalty clause of the main contract, the sub-contractors claim was successful. This did not mean that consideration was present as the benefit did not move from the promisee, although there was a clear departure from the orthodox principle of consideration principle. The doctr ine of consideration maintains that a contract will not be supported by the performance of an existing duty unless that duty exists by virtue of a third party contract (Noble, 1991: 141). This decision conflicts with the decision in Stilk which demonstrated that consideration needs to be of economic value to be deemed good consideration and that it needs to move from the promise as also shown in; White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36; Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851; Shadwell v Shadwell (1860) 9 CBNS 159; and Scotson v Pegg (Scotson v Pegg (1861) 6 H & N 295). It has also been argued by Cheshire et al; that; â€Å"the time has come to recognise formally the alternative definition of consideration and admit that the rationale behind the refusal to enforce some types of consideration is pure policy† (Cheshire et al; 2012; 77). Arguably, it appears that the consideration principle is rather outmoded and in need of reform so that a more robust approach to economic duress can be taken by the courts. At present, much confusion arises as to when economic duress can be used as a defence. Judges thus need to err on the side of caution to prevent commercial pressure being mistaken for economic duress and vice versa. Still, as stressed by the court in Adam v Opel Gmbh v Mitras Automotive [2007] EWHC 3481; â€Å"the list of matters to be considered in assessing legitimacy is not exhaustive, and the weight to be attached to each of them will depend on the facts of the individual case.† Furthermore, it was also stated in the case that the decision to be made will involve some element of value judgement when considering whether the pressure that was exerted on the claimant crossed the line from that which must be accepted in normal robust commercial bargaining. It is clear from the decision in this case that the courts have made some attempts to provide clarity in this area and that each case will be decided on its own facts. In the more recent case of Kolmar Group AG v Traxpo Enterprises Pyt Ltd [2010] EWHC 113 it was evidenced that a contract variation between a supplier and a customer will unlikely amount to duress if the supplier is unable to perform a contract as a result of financial difficulties that will cause the supplier to become insolvent. Another problem that arises when it comes to economic duress is whether lawful conduct can amount to illegitimate pressure. Whilst it is possible, it is also extremely rare as shown in CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1993] EWCA Civ 19; GMAC Commercial Credit Ltd v Dearden [2002] All ER (D) 440 (May) and Wright v HSBC Bank plc [2006] EWHC 930 QB. Consequently, economic duress will continue to pose many problems as there will always be a debate as to whether particular circumstances may or may not give rise to a claim for economic duress. Because of the uncertainty within this area, it is evident that a more robust approach needs to be taken so that greater clarity and consistency can be provided. Economic duress has also been criticised for being causation-led, thereby meaning that a lack of causation will prevent a successful claim from being made. In Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] UKPC 2 it was pointed out by Lord Scarman that in deciding whether causation was present, it will need to be considered whether the claimant; a) protested; b) had a practical alternative open to him; c) received independent advice; and d) acted promptly. This decision has been criticised for being inconclusive and failing to take into account the fact that claimants may not think that there is any point in protesting. This was recognised by Chen-Wis hart when it was argued that; â€Å"these factors are inconclusive. The victim may not protest because he sees no point in it or he may not wish to antagonise the coercing party whose performance he needs† (Chen-Wishart, 2012: 318). It is clear that the facts and circumstances of each case will be the determining factor as to whether the claimant has suffered economic duress or not. Because of the uncertainty that exists in this area, however, it is often difficult for those entering into commercial contracts to acknowledge that they are exerting pressure that is considered illegitimate, especially when there is a possibility that lawful pressure will also be capable of amounting to economic duress. As a result of this, Young warns against exerting commercial pressure that the courts may possibly consider economic duress: â€Å"Abusing your upper hand can leave the strong open to claims† (Young, 2012: 23). Conclusion Overall, whilst the doctrine of duress is well established in English law, the doctrine of economic duress still remains largely uncertain. This generally arises from the difficulty of distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate economic duress. As such, it is up to the courts to decide when a person’s economic interests have been damaged from being forced or coerced into entering into a contract. Hence, the court will be required to consider whether the re-negotiation of the terms of the contract were lawful and whether the person being subjected to the economic duress, should be entitled to rescind the contract that they entered into. This is an important defence in ensuring that parties to a contract have equal bargaining power. Nevertheless, the practical application of economic duress has been subject to much confusion over the years, which may result from the reasoning that has been provided by the courts. There appears to be a lack of consistency that is being pr ovided, which highlights the need for future reform to this area. Whilst there is a difference between commercial negotiation and illegitimate pressure, it has proven extremely difficult to distinguish between the two, especially since lawful conduct can also amount to illegitimate pressure. In order to provide clarity to this area, it seems as though a more robust approach is therefore needed by the courts. References Business Dictionary. (2014) Economic Duress, [Online] Available: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/economic-duress.html [07 July 2014]. Card, R. Murdoch, J. and Murdoch, S. (2003) Estate Management Law, OUP, 6th Edition. Carr, N. (2011) Walking the Line – The Balance Between Legitimate Negotiation and Economic Duress, Available [Online]: [07 July 2014]. Chen-Wishart, M. (2012) Contract Law, Oxford University Press. Cserne, P. (2009) Duress in Contracts: An Economic Analysis, Contract Law and Economics, Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Furmston, M. P. Cheshire, G C. and Fifoot, C H. (2012) Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract, Oxford University Press: London. Dictionary. (2014) Duress, [Online], Available: http://www.yourdictionary.com/duress [07 July 2014]. Noble, M. (1991) For Your Consideration, New Law Journal, Volume 141, Issue 1529. Ohrenstein, D. (2013) Key Developments in Contract Law: Economic Duress, Radcliffe Chambers, [Online] Available: http://www.radcliffechambers.com/media/Misc_Articles/Key_Developments_in_Contract_Law_-_Economic_Duress_2013.pdf [07 July 2014]. Young, A. (2012) When Pressure Turns to Duress, Construction Law Journal, Volume 23, Issue 5. Cases Adam v Opel Gmbh v Mitras Automotive [2007] EWHC 3481 Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B&Ad 950 CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1993] EWCA Civ 19 Dimskal Shipping v International Works Federation (â€Å"The Evia Luck†) [1992] 2 AC 152 DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services ASA [2000] EWHC 185 GMAC Commercial Credit Ltd v Dearden [2002] All ER (D) 440 (May) Kolmar Group AG v Traxpo Enterprises Pyt Ltd [2010] EWHC 113 North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd [1979] QB 705 Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] UKPC 17 Scotson v Pegg (Scotson v Pegg (1861) 6 H & N 295) Shadwell v Shadwell (1860) 9 CBNS 159 Siboen and The Sibotre [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 293 Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317 Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851 Universe Tankships v International Workers Federation (â€Å"The Universe Sentinel†) [1983] 1 AC 366 White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36 Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 Wright v HSBC Bank plc [2006] EWHC 930 QB

illegal immigrant workers should be granted legal status

Support one position on â€Å"illegal immigrant workers should be granted legal status† For the past 120 years- â€Å"between 1891 and 1920- [America has] received some 18 million men, women and children from other nations† (Bush 554) and causes one of the serious problem in the society. Therefore, immigration reform has been intensely debate among the citizen due to illegal immigrant issues that have become prevalent in United States. However, validating the illegal immigrant workers status should be considered strongly because their strong work ethic and other important American values such as an entrepreneurial spirit that strengthens the economy justify their need for a legal system that protects them from employer’s exploitation. Illegal†¦show more content†¦However, it is definitely not due to the illegal immigrants since they are just taking the â€Å"jobs American citizens are not filling† (Bush 554). Hence, it is quite as evident that i t does not affect the employment rate of the nation. Secondly, the local citizens have also expressed their thoughts that some of the illegal immigrant work in America and send the wages back home tax-free which leads to the negative sides of the country’s economy. In fact, it is cleared that there are no free things in this world and human needs food and drink to survive. Therefore, it is undoubtedly that the illegal immigrant has spent money in the states for one’s essential and sales tax has included in every single bill. This has shown that the money has not flow out from the country. Meanwhile, the illegal immigrant has never refuse to pay taxes but to work harder and get better wages, grab every single opportunity they can to live a better life. According to CBO forecasts, granting immigrant legal status would â€Å"reduce the federal deficit by $685 billion† (Rana Foroohar 24) and â€Å"U.S. would add $1.5 trillion to the economy over years†. à ¢â‚¬ (Rana Foroohar 24) Therefore, Americans can think that the higher wages the illegal immigrant workers earns, the more taxes they have to pay which translates into more tax revenue and increases consumer purchasing power which would certainly benefits the public treasury and the American economy as a whole. In addition, granting illegalShow MoreRelatedLeaving Home For A Better Way Of Life1043 Words   |  5 Pagesvalues and reconcile our principles as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.† Barack Obama, June 28, 2008 In the world every year, hundreds of thousands immigrants emigrate. Some of these immigrants are legal and others are illegal. These Immigrants may emigrate to other places within their countries or venture as far as outside of their country into the United States. Each Immigrant e migrate for many different reasons, some immigrants come into the United States in the hopes for a betterRead MoreThe Debate On Immigration Reform958 Words   |  4 Pagesfor Alien Minors, or DREAM Act, brought about legal, ethical, and logistical concerns. Illegal immigration and the population unauthorized alien in the United States were key issues in the ongoing debate on immigration reform. However, the benefits of this bill outweighed its disadvantages. Immigration policies in the United States concerning undocumented workers are strict and direct. Employers are not allowed to employ illegal or undocumented immigrants. The DREAM Act which was enacted by the ObamaRead MoreThe Immigrant Problem in th e US1780 Words   |  7 PagesStates. We still have many immigrants entering the United States to start a new and better life but this can create problems for the legal citizens when they do so illegally. There has been much debate on how to address this problem and how to figure out a solution to it. I believe that we have to have a clear path to citizenship for immigrants who come here illegally. The Senate passed a comprehensive bill last year that included a path to citizenship for those immigrants but the House of RepresentativesRead MoreThe Immigration Of The United States1711 Words   |  7 Pagesvast majority of people living in the United States are descendants of immigrants, and yet majority of them are against them. It is quickly forgotten that America was built on immigrants that wanted a new life. A life free from harsh government, and the freedom from forced religion. The original settlers were immigrants that stole this land; immigrants continued to come for years. It is not a newly constructed concept that immigrants have always been a problem, ask any Native American. One used to beRead MoreAlien Minors Act921 Words   |  4 Pagespursue a three-step pathway to gain U.S. citizenship through work, college, or the armed services. The first step of this plan regards the recipient’s conditional permanent residence, meaning they have residential status for up to eight years. Secondly, the recipient must soon be granted lawful permanent residence, or a green card. And lastly, they can apply for citizenship after 5 years with their green card. To qualify for this, the child must have moved to the US before sixteen years of age, liveRead MoreIllegal Immigration1356 Words   |  6 Pagesfounders of the United States were immigrants themselves, heroes that believed in equality and acceptance for all people. Immigration has and will always be a vital part of our nation’s diversity, economic stability, and rich culture. Although, in a post 9-11 world, should security trump diversity? Should we have to choose between being safe and being amiable? Currently we have one of the most relaxed systems of legal immigration in the world, letting in more immigrants than most other countries (Bowman)Read MoreAn Urgently Needed Immigration Reform Essay1187 Words   |  5 Pages Over the years there has been an increased number of immigrants into the U.S. As such, it has resulted to arguments pertaining the number of immigrants moving to the U. S. Arguably, the policy that has been put in place is not effective in realizing the intended function. Therefore, there is a need for a change in the policies that affect the immigration of citizen into the U.S. As such, this paper seeks to present the proffered policies that would help a great deal in modelling of immigrationRead MorePath to Citizenship1109 Words   |  5 PagesCitizenship The Heritage Foundations, Tim Kane, Ph.D., writes â€Å"America’s exceptional status as a ‘nation of immigrants’ is being challenged by globalization. The biggest challenge for policy makers is to distinguish illusory immigration from real problem. The supported approach from recent years ‘a policy of benign neglect’ is no longer an option.† Members from the Senate and House of Representatives both recognize this and should be given credit for their efforts to craft this proposed comprehensive law whichRead MoreThe Immigration Issue Is A Complicated Facet Of Our Society.1413 Words   |  6 Pages The immigration issue is a complicated facet of our society. The idea of illegal immigration has become significantly more prevalent within our country, as it has become a major topic of discourse and a force that polarizes America at large. Many Americans have begun to see immigration as a determent to our economy, our safety, and to the core values of America, other have encouraged immigration. Those in the latter group have seen the benefits of immigration, the mixing of cultures, and allowingRead MoreImmigration During The United States1199 Words   |  5 Pagesremember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists† (Franklin D. Roosevelt). For many years immigration has been a controversial topic, despite the fact that most of us are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Unless one is a Native American, most people migrated here from Mexico, China, or any other country besides the United States. The majority of immigrants in this country are here for many reasons, but one of the primary reasons