Thursday, February 20, 2020

Should Yahoo have been forced to turn over Justin Ellsworth's email to Essay

Should Yahoo have been forced to turn over Justin Ellsworth's email to his Parents - Essay Example There is a view that the Yahoo management should have acted swiftly and handed over the email documents to the parents of the killed Marine soon after their asking without waiting for the court order. The argument that the Yahoo management should have been forced somehow to comply with the parents’ request without waiting for the court order does not stand logic as it would have itself violated its own privacy agreement in such a case. In declining to accept the parents’ request, Yahoo went purely by the deontological part of the ethics while ignoring the utilitarian part. Utilitarian theory of the ethics requires people to take into consideration the resulting consequences of a particular action (Grunig & White, 1992) on the people or events involved. Yahoo knows better that a utilitarian approach would sometimes lead to problems despite its positive effects. Yahoo must have carefully assessed the positive and Had Yahoo immediately handed over the email contents to the parents when they asked, they would have certainly felt happy and satisfied on that count. This is certainly a positive effect when viewed from the parents’ angle but it would have also produced its negative consequences for the Yahoo Management. In such a case, the company would have violated its own privacy policy of protecting the interests of its email users and attracted criticism. This was clear from the statement of the Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako who disclosed that they would abide by the court order and hand over the email contents to Justin’s parents indicating that they would never deviate from their well established privacy policy but would only act on the directions of a court of law (Chambers, 2005). Certainly, Yahoo followed the deontological theories of ethics which emphasize adherence to a stated policy and commitment to rules and regulations. The logic of the deontological

Tuesday, February 4, 2020

Property law (land law and law of equity and trusts) Essay

Property law (land law and law of equity and trusts) - Essay Example Section 53 (1)(c)states as follows: The purpose behind setting out this clause was to prevent fraud in hidden transfers of equitable interests and in order that trustees who hold the legal interests are able to identify those equitable interests. There is a conflict that arises in terms of the disposition of the legal owner of the trust as set out in the written instruments vis a vis the equitable owner/s or beneficiaries of the trust, since equity starts out in the form of a measure of â€Å"confidence reposed in some other† which imposes â€Å"a duty or aggregate accumulation of obligations† that connotes some beneficial interest2. Where the disposition of a trust has been set out in writing or by deed, the Courts must give effect to it. In fact, the law of formalities has created inflexibility in some cases and there have been instances where the interests of beneficiaries have been compromised. For example, in the case of Re Diplock3 that concerned the disposition of a trust, the general principle th at was laid down was clarified by Pettitt, who states that whenever there is an initial fiduciary relationship, the beneficial owner of an equitable proprietary interest in property can trace it into the hands of anyone holding the property except a bona-fide purchaser for value without notice4. Property held in trust for a beneficiary is generally meant to be assigned on the basis of equity and though the process of tracing is helpful to locate beneficial interests in a trust, Petitt clarifies that this is only possible to the extent that the fund can be followed and identified; if on the facts of any individual case, such continued existence is not established, equity is helpless.†5†¦..(422 words) (a) Certainty of intention: This is based upon the equitable maxim that equity looks to intent rather than form, as set out in the case of Paul v Constance6, where the Court inferred the presence of a trust in spite