Law for Business BREF 1 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Law for Business BREF 1 - Essay Example This is because at the time of the sale, the toys were not yet in a deliverable state and Megastores’ duty to prepare it for delivery was not yet discharged. The conclusion is that Megastores should shoulder the responsibility for the damage to the two toys whilst Toys4U should be free from such responsibility. The parties involved here are Megastores and Toys4U, the seller and the buyer, respectively. The subject of the contract of sale is a Polaris missile toy, ten units of them. Megastores contended that Toys4U was liable for the damage of two of the toys because ownership had already passed to the latter at the time the damage occurred. The issue here is whether or not ownership had already passed to Toys4U at the time of the damage. Toys4U is not liable for the damage of the two Polaris missiles toys because it occurred before ownership passed from Megastores to Toys4U. This is supported by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SoGA) and pertinent case law previously decided by the courts. The applicable statute here is the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SoGA hereafter), which received Royal Assent on December 6, 1979 and took effect commencing January 1, 1980. The SoGA governs transactions of sale of goods within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. Specific provisions of said law applicable here are: s 2(1), which defines a contract of sale; s 17 (1) and (2), which provide for the exact time specific or ascertained goods are deemed transferred from seller to buyer; s 18 Rule 2, which provides for the exact time property passes from seller to buyer when seller is first required to put goods in a deliverable state, and; s 20 (1), which allocates risk liability to parties. Section 20 (1) of the SoGA 1979 provides that the property subject of the sale remains at the risk of the seller until transferred to the buyer. This means that Megastores should shoulder damage sustained by the toys unless ownership was explicitly or implicitly

Preventing a brave New World WK5 assignment Essay

Preventing a brave New World WK5 assignment - Essay Example He argues that whatever scientists call ‘therapeutic cloning’, is the use of embryos as a font of tissues (Kass, 2001, p. 327). He also offers some reasons against cloning which covers both reproductive and therapeutic cloning. In his arguments against cloning, Kass advocates for ethical practice in biomedical projects. His views however, may face some challenges. In this essay, the discussion will cover Kass’ reasons for advocating for a ban on human cloning, and the strengths and weaknesses of his argument. Kass’ Reasons against Human Cloning Kass has four reasons against human cloning. That the process of cloning humans is unethical, because the child to-be is used in an experiment that subjects him or her to risks of developmental and bodily abnormalities. That cloning threatens individuality and confuses identity. The clone is made from a genotype that has already lived. This denies the cloned individual his or her individuality. The process of cloning results in an individual that could be a twin to the person he/she should refer to as a mother or a father. It means the clone’s relation to the parent is confused. That cloning is a way of turning procreation into manufacture, and that it is a major form of child abuse and parental tyranny (Kass, 2001, p. 324-328). Strengths of the Argument Evidence shows that cloning is very risky and expensive. According to Sharma (2007), cloning is inefficient and 90% of attempts fail. Cloned animals have been found to have high rate infection, carcinoma, low immunity levels and some disorders. Even Dolly sheep suffered some abnormalities when it was five years old (Gupta, 2004, p. 256). Evidence also shows that cloned animals’ genomes are compromised and some of them behave abnormally. They also suffer from congenital abnormalities due to programming errors. Some cloned animals die young (Sharma, 2007, p. 167). The concept of cloning supports the argument on identity and individu ality. The process involves removal or deactivation of a nucleus from an unfertilized egg and introduction of a somatic cell nucleus from a selected adult (Levine, 2009, p. 9). This means that the cloned individual will not have the natural genetic distinctiveness and independence. Procreation has indeed been turned into a manufacturing process. Levine indicates that cloning technology already has commercial uses with many private companies and academic scientists owning various patents. These patents cover various elements of derivation of human embryonic stem cells, and nuclear transfer technique (Levine, 2009, p. 144). Weaknesses of the Argument Different people have different views on what is wrong or right. Arguments against cloning, therefore, that procreation has been turned into a manufacturing process, that cloning leads to the production of abnormal babies, and that the cloned individual may lack identity and individuality; may all not be considered unethical by some peopl e. Some may argue that malformed, unhealthy and abnormal children are born every year due to various factors. Some may argue that Kass’ arguments do not consider the goodness of well-being. Some may argue that considering the advantages of well-being over disadvantages could be more appropriate (The President's Council on Bioethics, 2002). Conclusion Cloning should be banned based on the reasons given by Kass. Apart from