Analysis of Price Setting, Poverty and Obamacare

Analysis of Price Setting, Poverty and Obamacare Question : 1 Nike’s charge a price Considering the Nike’s charging a price of a Air Jordan Basketball Shoes, economically we shall have to discuss about the price determining factors that why and how the Nike’s and under what circumstances is defining the price. The followings are the factors which can influence the Nike’s price determination: Cost of Product: This means calculation of all costs including procurement of raw material, manufacturing, distribution, labor, and other miscellaneous expenses. If the rate is not inclusive of break-even there would be trouble. So Nike while fixing the price must have notice the cost. Profit Margin: After measuring the cost, the business wants the profit taking as to what extant there should be the earning. So that it may influence the Nike’s strategy while determining price. Market Demand: It plays also a vital role as in case of less demand the price shall be lower while in case of high demand the price shall be high. Demand & Supply concept affects the price determination. Experience & Market Credibility: This is also a known factor to the price determination because the credibility in the market gives the seller sound position and the buyer trust the goods produced by well experienced and well reputed manufacturer so that they also influence the price determination factor. Market Competition: In case of excess of business rivals, there is a strong competition occurs in the market so that the prices are to be determined in a way to attract the buyer maximum. [1] The all above factors generally influence the price determination therefore we can say that Nike can charge the price as it may has considered the above factors. Its cost & profit margin as well product demand may influence and would demand the price that Nike is going to fix. Que: 2 Explain in detail what is being done to combat poverty? But also add why poverty is so hard to define and ultimately solve. Th e poverty is a state of person in which is becomes unable to meet his necessities from the resources available to him. The necessities include, food to maintain the hunger, education, healthcare facilities, shelter to reside, clothes and the means to live and improve. It is a hard task to define and measure the poverty since past because the growth rate of the population is increasing with a high margin than the growth in resources. All around the world especially the third world countries are facing this problem more. The United Nations has been planning and working to reduce the poverty in collaboration with IMF, World Bank and other financial institutions. A statistical figure printed by â€Å"One Day’s Wage† show that the 2.4 billion people around the world have been living on less than $ 2/day and approximately 1.2 billion are living on less than $ 1.24. (Extreme Global Poverty) [2] . About 3.4 million people die every day because of water related disease and appr oximately 768 million people have no access to clean water. The number of dead due to HIV/AIDS is 11,700 while 61 million children having the age of primary education are not attending the schools. In every minute at least one women is being die due to pregnancy or labor complications. 29.8 million People are enslaved. (The World Bank Survey and One’s Campaign). Strategy of One day’s Wage is to get the donation of one day from the individuals at global levels to combat the poverty and provide the aid to the people.

Resulting and Constructive Trust in Equity & Trust Case Study

Resulting and Constructive Trust in Equity & Trust - Case Study Example She also, throughout the relationship, looked after the children and performed all the usual domestic duties around the home. In Sept 2003, Lynn formed a liaison with another man and moved out of the house. She brought an action against Mike claiming that she was entitled to a half-share in the house by reason of her contributions to the house hold expenses during the period the parties lived together. According to the evidence at the trial in the High Court, both Lynn and Mike had assumed that the house was jointly owned although the matter was never actually discussed between them. It is also not in dispute that, if it had not been for the fact that Lynn was working part-time, Mike would not have been able to meet the mortgage payments out of his own salary. 1) Applying Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset (1994) 1 A.C. 107, (HL), in the absence of any finding of an agreement, arrangement or understanding between the parties to share beneficially, Lynn's indirect contributions to household expenses were insufficient to found a beneficial interest in the house. In particular, the court refused to follow the decision of Mr. Nicholas Mostyn Q.C. (sitting as a deputy High judge) in Le v Le Foe (2002) 2 F.L.R. 970on the ground that it was inconsistent with Lord Bridge's speech in Rosset; 2) Distinguishing Midlands Bank Plc v Cooke (1995) 4 All E.R. 562 (C.A.), it was not open to the court to assess Glady's beneficial share in the house by undertaking a survey of the whole course of dealings between the parties relevant to their ownership and occupation of the property. The principle enunciated in Cooke applied only to the establishment of an equitable interest through direct contributions. In December 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed Lynn's appeal affirming both grounds given by the High Court. Task: Lynn now wishes to appeal to the House of Lords against the Court of Appeal's decision and seeks your written opinion on the merits of her claim. You should support your advice by reference to decided cases. Answer: The current state of caselaw on implied trust and beneficial or equitable interest in property due to indirect contributions to family home is not favourable to the appeal being considered by Lynn Jones. English courts are reluctant to adopt the remedial constructive trust principles of Canadian courts. It seems to be that judicial reasoning on implied trust rely on contributions to the purchase price and provable agreement, arrangement or understanding between the parties to share the property beneficially prevent the application of principles of justice and conscience in the present case. The facts of the problem show that the court had already struck down Lynn Jones arguments on the application of resulting trust principles because of the lack of contribution to the purchase price or proof of agreement, arrangement or understanding to share equitable interest. Not only the Rosset and Cooke cases but also the basic direction of