Dââââââââââââââââââââââuring the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, there has been backlash against Asians and Asian-Americans. Using the search term “racial attacks coronavirus” in your preferred browser, read at least 2 of the articles that appear in the search. Using those articles, as well as your awareness of the ongoing situation, and understanding of microaggressions, discuss in a minimum of 250 words . Things to answer in your reflection: Do you agree/disagree that calling the coronavirus names like “Chinese virus,” “Chinese flu,” “Wuhan virus,” “Kung Flu,” etc. plays a part in encouraging microaggressions towards Asians and Asian Americans? Were you aware of the recent attacks and instances of discrimination during the pandemic? If so, do you know anyone personally that has been affected? Do you think elected officials and public figures should use this type of terminologyââââââââââââââââââââââ to refer to the virus? Why or why not? What can people do to stop these microaggressions? Specifically, what can YOU do?
Sample Solution
(c.) the subject to contract exclusionary principle found in the case of Cheverny Consulting Limited v Whitehead Mann Ltd which as defined by Neil Andrews is ââ¦a shared understanding that the relevant consensus is not legally effective as a contractâ was applicable in this case. Lord Justice Neuberger in his judgement states that the points raised by the appellant were valid. He believed the information obtained from the third, fourth and fifth emails implied that the offer had been rejected. His judgement states that the respondentâs failure to communicate acceptance within the given time frame made the offer inoperative. Lady Smith LJ also affirmed that in the third email Mr. Jenkins made it clear that the appellant believed there would be no contract until the Dixon Ward draft had been signed by both parties. Hence, the appeal was allowed unanimously and the judgement of the High Court was reversed. 4. This case encapsulates the difficulty involved in the establishment of acceptance via email which following precedent depends on the facts, intentions and conduct of the parties involved and the accepted business practice. There is no definitive rule for acceptance. It does not follow the postal rule or the receipt rule and this could be detrimental as shown in this case where two different judges considering the same facts came about different conclusions. It also reaffirms the existing case law on the subject to contract principle as found in Cheverny Consulting Limited v Whitehead Mann Ltd which states that a shared agreement on the provisions of the contract do not make it legally binding until a draft agreement has been signed by the parties involved. It could serve as a good example in the illustration of the time lapse rule of contract law. On a moral level one could argue that Mr. Bragg by reason of his conduct which include excluding Mr. Grant from the affairs of the company and enjoying all the benefits that would come from the acquisition of Mr. Grantâs shares even though he was yet to purchase the shares should buy the shares regardless of whether or not there was a contract since he had already begun to reap the benefits of acquiring Mr. Grantâs shareholding. The judgement made by the court of appeal was sound in all ramifications but does not invalidate the fact that in respect to communication of acceptance through email there >
(c.) the subject to contract exclusionary principle found in the case of Cheverny Consulting Limited v Whitehead Mann Ltd which as defined by Neil Andrews is ââ¦a shared understanding that the relevant consensus is not legally effective as a contractâ was applicable in this case. Lord Justice Neuberger in his judgement states that the points raised by the appellant were valid. He believed the information obtained from the third, fourth and fifth emails implied that the offer had been rejected. His judgement states that the respondentâs failure to communicate acceptance within the given time frame made the offer inoperative. Lady Smith LJ also affirmed that in the third email Mr. Jenkins made it clear that the appellant believed there would be no contract until the Dixon Ward draft had been signed by both parties. Hence, the appeal was allowed unanimously and the judgement of the High Court was reversed. 4. This case encapsulates the difficulty involved in the establishment of acceptance via email which following precedent depends on the facts, intentions and conduct of the parties involved and the accepted business practice. There is no definitive rule for acceptance. It does not follow the postal rule or the receipt rule and this could be detrimental as shown in this case where two different judges considering the same facts came about different conclusions. It also reaffirms the existing case law on the subject to contract principle as found in Cheverny Consulting Limited v Whitehead Mann Ltd which states that a shared agreement on the provisions of the contract do not make it legally binding until a draft agreement has been signed by the parties involved. It could serve as a good example in the illustration of the time lapse rule of contract law. On a moral level one could argue that Mr. Bragg by reason of his conduct which include excluding Mr. Grant from the affairs of the company and enjoying all the benefits that would come from the acquisition of Mr. Grantâs shares even though he was yet to purchase the shares should buy the shares regardless of whether or not there was a contract since he had already begun to reap the benefits of acquiring Mr. Grantâs shareholding. The judgement made by the court of appeal was sound in all ramifications but does not invalidate the fact that in respect to communication of acceptance through email there >
