LLM Commercial Law

Sample details Pages: 15 Words: 4560 Downloads: 5 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Statistics Essay Did you like this example? LL.M Commercial Law Should Courts Lift the Corporate Veil to a significantly greater extent? The doctrine laid down in Salomon v Salomon Co Ltd has to be watched very carefully. It has often been supposed to cast a veil over the personality of a limited company through which the courts cannot see. But that is not true. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "LLM Commercial Law | Law Dissertations" essay for you Create order The courts can and often do draw aside the veil. They can and often do pull off the mask. They look to see what really lies behind. The legislature has shown the way with group accounts and the rest. And the courts should follow suit. I think that we should look at the Fork company and see it as it really is the wholly owned subsidiary of the tax payers. It is the creature, the puppet of the taxpayers in point of fact, and it should be so regarded in point of law. Per Lord Denning MR, Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd v I.R.C. [1969] 3 All ER 855 Bibliography 1.0Introduction This dissertation will discuss the principles of limited liability and corporate personality and the courts reluctance to disregard the corporate veil the principle called piercing the Corporate Veil. We shall consider the circumstances in which the Courts have been able to pierce the veil of incorporation and the reasons as to why they have in most cases upheld the decision in Solomon v Solomon Co[1]. All companies in the United Kingdom have to be registered and incorporated under the Companies Act which governs the principle of limited liability hence giving the owners or shareholders a curtain against liability from creditors in the case of the company falling into financial troubles. This curtain so created gives the company a separate legal personality so that it can sue and be sued in its own right and the only loss to the owners or shareholders is the number of shares held in the company on liquidation with no effect on their personal assets. This distinct separation between the owners or shareholders and the limited company is the concept referred to as the veil of incorporation or corporate veil. In conclusion, it shall be argued that the courts should lift or pierce the corporate veil to a significantly greater extent so as to hold erring shareholders or directors of a corporation liable for the debts or liabilities of the corporation despite the general principle of limited liability were the corporation has insufficient assets to off-set the creditor liabilities. 2.0Limited liability and Corporate Personality The principles of limited liability and corporate personality are the cornerstone of the United Kingdom company law since the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844, its consolidation in 1856[2] and the introduction of the Limited Liability Act 1855. These two principles have been so guarded by the courts as being fundamental to todays company law by upholding the separate legal personality of a corporate entity. However, whilst the original intention of the legislation was to help companies raise capital through the issue of shares without exposing the shareholders to risk beyond the shares held, the present attraction to incorporating a company is the advantage of shielding behind the curtain of limited liability which could be abused by some businessmen. 2.1Companies Act 2006 Article 3 (1) provides that a company is a limited company if the liability of its members is limited by its constitution. Article 7 (2) provides that a company may not be so formed for an unlawful purpose. Article 16 (2) The subscribers to the memorandum, together with such other persons as may from time to time become members of the company, are a body corporate by the name stated in the certificate of incorporation. (3) That body corporate is capable of exercising all the functions of an incorporated company. 2.2Limited liability As stated above, the doctrine of limited liability was introduced by the Limited Liability Act 1855 as a means by which companies could raise capital by selling company shares without exposing the shareholders to unlimited liability.[3] The principle of limited liability shields the company owners, shareholders and directors or managers against personal liability in the event of the company winding up or becoming insolvent. In such an event the liability of its owners and shareholders is limited to the individual shareholding held as provided for by the Companies Act 2006 and the Insolvency Act 1986[4]. This means that the members of a company do not have to contribute their personal assets to the company assets to meet the obligations of the company to its creditors on its liquidation but have to contribute the full nominal value of the shares held by individual shareholders. It should be noted here that such limited liability does not shield the limited company from liability until all its debts or assets are exhausted. This principle has so been held since the House of Lords ruling in the Solomon case[5] in which the Lords where of the view that the motives behind the formation of a corporation was irrelevant in determining its rights and liabilities as long as all the requirements of registration are complied with and the company is not formed for an unlawful purpose[6]. Much as a limited company has a separate legal personality, its decisions are made by directors and managers who should use the powers conferred unto them by the company board of directors and the memorandum and articles of association[7], and any abuse will entail personal liability by the officer concerned. Limited liability encompasses both the small enterprise including one-man companies[8] and big companies hence limiting the liabilities to company assets and not to any other personal assets.[9] This view has been endorsed in recent times through numerous cases as evidenced in a one-man company, Lees Air Farming. Lee was the majority shareholder and director in the company in which he was also the employee. He was killed on duty in an air accident and the court held that Lee and the company were two separate entities and hence entitled to compensation.[10] The courts will only in exceptional circumstances such as abuse, fraud or where the company was used as an agent of its owner disregard the doctrine of limited liability and hold members, shareholders or directors personally liable for the debts and other company obligations to the creditors in what has been termed the piercing or lifting of the veil of incorporation. However, there are several statutory laws which allow for the principle of limited liability to be ignored in such situations as in the reporting of financial statements of group companies[11], corporate crime and insolvency[12] which we shall discuss below. 2.3Corporate Personality A limited company is a legal person[13] with an existence which is separate and independent from its members as long as all the formalities of registration are adhered with in line with the Act. The corporate identity entails the company can sue and be sued in its own right without affecting its owners or shareholders rights. It is trite law that the only plaintiff to a wrong done to a company is prima facie company itself and not its shareholders[14] except in instances where there is a fraud against shareholders or the acts complained of are illegal. The company has been held as having an independent legal corporate personality since it was first held in the case of Solomon v A Solomon Co Ltd[15]. To emphasise this point, Lord Macnaghten said that it seemed impossible to dispute that once the company is legally incorporated it must be treated like any other independent person with its rights and liabilities appropriate to itself, and that the motives of those who took part in the promotion of the company are absolutely irrelevant in discussing what those rights and liabilities are.[16] In this case, Solomon registered his company into a limited company under the Companies Act[17] which required a minimum of seven (7) members for incorporation. Solomon became the major shareholder with his wife and children holding a share each but the company ran into financial problems leaving no assets for the unsecured creditors on liquidation. Whilst the court of appeal held the company to be a sham and an alias, trustee or nominee for Solomon and that the transaction was contrary to the true intent of the Companies Act[18] the House of Lords reversed this decision and held that the company had been validly registered as required by the Act and hence had a separate legal personality from the shareholders. In arriving at this decision, Lord Macnaghten said that, The company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers.Nor are the subscribers, as members liable, in any shape or form, except to the extent and in the manner provided by the Act. This decision shows that the House of Lords identified that the important factor was the observance of the requirements and formalities of the Act which safeguarded the principles of limited liability and corporate personality.To date, this is the correct interpretation of the Companys Act and it is important that the principle in maintained in the advancement of commerce. It should be noted here that the principle of corporate personality does not affect the company creditors to a large extent as far as the recovery of the debts is concerned. Following the decision in the Solomon case, Professor Gower has described a limited company as being opaque and impassable[19], whilst on the other hand it was described as calamitous[20]. Some commentators suggest that courts have been more inclined to the maintenance of the sanctity of the separate legal integrity of a company and have resisted the common law resolution of peering under the skirts of a company to examine its linen (dirty or otherwise)[21] as can be observed from the numerous cases since the Solomon case. The foregoing shows the importance to commerce of the incorporation of a company as it allows for continuity of the business transactions despite any changes in the owners, administrators, directors or shareholders of the company. However, common law has in some exceptional instances ignored this principle in stances of abuse or fraudulent use of a sham corporate structure. The courts have ignored the corporate sham structure and peer behind the veil to identify the directing mind and will that control the company and such intervention being termed as lifting the veil, cloak[22] or mask[23]. Whilst the courts have at times pierced the veil to benefit creditors when a company is placed under liquidation, there has been reluctance by the same courts to pierce the veil in instances which could have favourable results for shareholders.[24] 3.0One-man Limited Companies The Council Directive 89/667[25] provides for the formation of one-man private companies hence moving away from the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856 requirements. This Directive highlights the advancement in commerce and as can be indentified from the Solomon case, Mr Solomon was the owner of the company and only registered the other six shares for his wife and children to fulfil the requirements of the Act. The company owner in these one-man corporations would in most instances also be the director in which case some unscrupulous individuals could escape liability for their own misconduct by holding assets in the name of the corporation. The courts are prepared to pierce the corporate veil in a one man company so as to be enabled to treat assets of the company as property held by the defendants were the company is held to be an alter ego of the owner.[26] However, the courts have shown that they are not prepared to pierce the corporate veil even in one-man limited companies as long as they are properly registered as required by the Act. In the case lee v LeesAir Farming[27] mentioned above, Mr Lee incorporated Lees Farming Limited and was the director and controlling officer as an employee of the company. On his death in an air crush whilst on duty and the family claimed workers compensation. The court held that the company and Mr Lee were distinct and separate entities and hence Mr Lee was a worker in his own company. Hence we see here the courts upholding of the principle set down by the rule in Solomon v Solomon[28] which has remained controversial[29] with changing commercial activity and globalisation. The courts have been more willing to pierce the veil in one-man companies were the owner of the company is usually the controlling officer and does not deal with the company at arms length. In the case of Wallersteiner v Moir[30], Lord Denning held that the subsidiaries were controlled by Dr Wallersteiner making them puppets which danced to his bidding. Lord Denning is pointing out here that whilst the subsidiaries appeared to have a separate personality, they were in reality his agents or sham companies with no existence of their own and hence warranted the piercing of the veil. This principle of corporate personality as established in the Salomon case has been extended to groups companies which we shall look at below. 4.0Group Companies Group companies comprise of the parent company with its subsidiaries carrying on their businesses not as a common enterprise or single economic unit[31], though portraying it as such to the outside world. The principle of limited liability applies to the subsidiary companies so formed as they are registered companies under the Act and as such each has a separate legal personality to the parent company and hence can sue and be sued in their own right. The advantage of this arrangement to the group is that it limits liability to each subsidiary company in the group whilst sharing the group profits for the benefit of the group structure. Such group structures can lead to the parent company forming subsidiary companies to run its risky part of the business and hence insulating itself from liability in the event of the subsidiary company failing to meet its obligations to the creditors.[32] The effect of corporate personality in group companies is that each entity is legally independent and separate from other subsidiaries and the parent, hence each entity being liable for its own debts,[33] which affirms the Solomon principle. Lord Justice Slade said: Our law, for better or worse, recognises the creation of subsidiary companies, which though in one sense the creatures of their parent companies, will nevertheless under the general law fall to be treated as separate legal entities with all the rights and liabilities which would normally attach to separate legal entities.[34] This is still the law and an affirmation of the principle in the Solomon case. In the case of Ord Another v Belhaven Pubs Ltd,[35] the proprietors of a company which was in the business of acquiring old pub premises, doing them up and then letting them to tenants, duly let a renovated pub building to Ord. There had been misrepresentations made by the company as to the potential profitability of the premises which only came to light some time later. By the time Belhaven Pubs Ltd had ceased trading and could not meet its debts. Ord sought leave to substitute the parent company. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant company which had granted the lease was legitimate and had not been a mere faade for the holding company and hence could not be substituted. This basic principle of separate legal identity has been re-affirmed more recently in the Court of Appeal decision in Adams v Cape Industries PLC[36]. In this case, the defendant company was a member of a corporate group with a UK parent company. The employees in its US subsidiaries were injured by inhaling asbestos dust and had successfully sued the subsidiaries in US courts. They applied to enforce judgement against the parent company arguing that Cape had been present in the USA through its subsidiaries as they formed a single economic unit. The Court declined to pierce the corporate veil and held that the fundamental principle is that each company in a group of companies is a separate legal entity possessed of separate legal rights and liabilities The principle in the case of Salomon was upheld on the basis that the subsidiary companies had been legitimately formed and hence were separate legal entities distinct from the parent company. 5.1The Directing Mind A registered company is a separate and distinct legal entity, a body corporate[37] possessing rights and made subject to duties being able to sue and be sued in its own right. In the case of Lennards Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd[38], the court held that, a corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own any more than it has a body of its own; its active and directing will must consequently be sought in the person of somebody who for some purposes may be called an agent, but who is really the directing mind and will of the corporation, the very ego and centre of the personality of the corporation.. So we see here that the courts are willing to look behind the corporate veil as a matter of law so as to establish the directing officer behind the decisions and actions taken by the company. The directing mind of a corporation is the senior person whose authority is derived from the companys board of directors to perform the functions of the company as directed and for the benefit of the company.[39] In the course of business, such senior persons would then delegate their authority to other employees for the efficient running of the company in which case such employees actions or inactions would be considered as those of the directing mind. Lord Reid further went on to define the directing mind and will of the company as the person who acts for the company as he acts as the company and his mind which directs his acts is the mind of the company.. He is not acting as a servant, representative, agent or delegate. He is an embodiment of the company or, one could say, he hears and speaks through the persona of the company, within his appropriate sphere, and his mind is the mind of the company. If it is a guilty mind then that guilt is the guilt of the company.[40] Therefore, this would mean that the directing mind and will of the company is any employee who performs certain functions for the corporation as long as he has the authority to do so and does not act outside his mandate in which case he will be held personally liable[41]. In Williams and another v. Natural life health foods ltd and mistlin,[42] the case of a small one-person company, Sir Patrick Russell in his dissenting judgment pointed out that the managing director will almost inevitably be the one possessed of qualities essential to the functioning of the company, but that in itself does not mean that the director is willing to be personally liable to the companys customers. Therefore to convict a company, the court will go behind the status of the separate legal entity distinction so as to establish the directing mind and will of the company controlling its activities[43]. However, it has been identified that the principle of limited liability can be subject to abuse and in the circumstances were there is statute will not provide justice or equity, the courts have in such exceptional circumstances disregarded the principle and held the shareholders or directors accountable for their decisions in the running of the company. The process in which the courts have disregarded the principle of limited liability is called piercing the corporate veil which is the main discussion of this document. 5.2Tortious Liability The company is vicariously liable for any torts committed by its employees or agents whilst acting in the course of the official duties and shall not be called into question on the ground of lack of capacity[44] whilst the employee or agent remains the primary tortfeasor[45]. It is therefore clear that the directing mind and will can sometimes be personally liable for torts, for which the company is also liable, for their fraudulent acts though done on behalf of the company. 4.3Criminal Liability The Barrow Borough Council case is thought to be the first prosecution of a local authority for corporate manslaughter. To convict a company of corporate manslaughter, the prosecution must prove the companys conduct, which led to the deaths, was the conduct of a senior person in the companythe directing mind (also often referred to as the controlling mind). In practical terms, this means that for a company to be guilty of corporate manslaughter a senior person (normally a director) also has to be guilty of manslaughter. The difficulty with these cases, particularly against larger companies with layers of management, is proving a causal link between the conduct (or lack of it) of the directing mind and the incident that caused death. 6.0The Corporate Veil The corporate veil is the curtain that legally separates the company from its shareholders hence holding the company as having a separate legal personality and limited liability. In curtailing any abuses of limited liability and the protection of creditors to both small and group companies, the courts have in certain instances, though reluctantly, looked behind the corporate veil to establish the true intent of the controlling officers of the company. The courts have in the rare circumstances ignored the corporate form and looked at the business realities of the situation so as to prevent the deliberate evasion of contractual obligations, to prevent fraud or other criminal activities and in the interest of public policy and morality. Piercing the corporate veil has not been complicated in one-man companies were the owner is usually the director and hence the controlling officer as compared to group companies which have a layered structure. The controlling officer[46] will be held liable and asked to account for his actions so that the company can fulfil its financial obligations to its creditors in the event of company insolvency. In the case of Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan[47] made clear. 6.1Lifting the Corporate Veil The corporate veil is a curtain that shields company shareholders and directors from personal liability by the principle of limited liability in the event of the company being insolvent and unable to fulfil its obligations. The lifting of the corporate veil concept describes a legal decision where the limited company shareholders or directors are held liable for the debts or other liabilities of the corporation contrary to the principle of limited liability. Whilst there is strict liability legislation to prosecute erring limited companies for statutory offences but were there is insufficient statutory protection, the common law remedy of piercing of the corporate veil is imposed by the courts so as to put liability on the controlling officer (directing mind) of the corporation. However, the courts have been reluctant to rebut the principle of limited liability and only in exceptional circumstances have they been willing to pierce the corporate veil to establish the true facts. In this way, certain individuals or parent-companies responsible for the companys actions are held liable so at to account for their decisions as shareholders or directors. Generally, the UK corporate law holds that the shareholders, directors or parent-companies are not liable for corporate obligations of the companies or subsidiaries they control hence maintaining the principles of limited liability and separate legal corporate personality. The principles of separate legal personality and limited liability have been long recognised in English law[48] and that the shareholders or directors are not liable for the debts of the company as long as it is properly administered.[49] However, in exceptional circumstances[50], the courts have been prepared to look behind the company and establish the actions or inactions of the directors and shareholders using the process known as piercing the corporate veil. Piercing the corporate veil is the process whereby the court ignores the principle of corporate personality and holds the shareholders or directors liable for their actions so that they meet the company obligations in their personal capacities.The courts will pierce or the veil were the corporate structure has been used as an instrument of fraud or to circumvert the law.[51] It has been argued that whilst the courts have used the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil though reluctantly, it is still not well understood leading to uncertainties in the legal process.[52] Some commentators have argued that the exceptional circumstances in which the courts have justified the piercing of the corporate veil is uncertain as evidenced by the number of contradictory decisions by the courts.[53]Goulding[54] further argues that it is not possible to distil any single principle from the decided cases as to when the courts will lift the veil due to the diversity of the cases, though they are more willing in cases of extreme abuse.[55] In the leading case on this subject, Solomon v Solomon[56] discussed above, the House of Lords maintained that individuals could organise their affairs as they wanted and that if they chose to do so via incorporation they were entitled to the protection of limited liability as long as the incorporation was in accordance with the formal rules of the relevant legislation. Though it is English trite law that the incorporation of a company protects the members from company liability by the principle of limited liability, there are both statutory and common law exceptions to the principle in cases of abuse of the corporate structure. 7.0Statutory Exceptions Gower and Davies[57] argue that the courts are willing to lift the veil were statutory wording of a particular statute[58] is explicit as Parliament intended. The courts have resisted the temptation to pierce the veil because they consider it just to do so[59] though they are more willing in exceptional circumstances or were they feel that the shareholders or directors are concealing the true facts[60]. However, the courts have been reluctant to lift the veil were the statute does not specifically provide for it. There are various Acts which specifically provide for the lifting of the corporate veil and as such are strict and have to be followed. Following are a few examples of both civil and criminal liability imposed on limited companies. Companies Act 2006 sections 398 and 399 Group of companies Although each company is a separate legal person, section 399 (2) requires that the parent company prepares group accounts at the end of the financial year so as to give a true and fair view of the assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss. This Act looks at the group of companies as a single economic entity and in effect lifting the corporate veil which goes against the principles of corporate personality and limited liability.

evaluate the effectiveness of health and social care...

Unit 14 – physiological disorders P1 P2 P3 Explain the nature of two named physiological disorders Explain the signs and symptoms Describe the investigations that are carried out to enable the diagnosis. The two physiological disorders I will be talking about in this assignment is hypertension and Diabetes. Pulmonary hypertension Pulmonary hypertension is a lung disorder. The arteries that carry blood from the heart to the lungs become narrowed, making it very hard for the blood to get through the vessels, this then causes the pressure in the arteries to increase more than usual (high blood pressure). Scientists think that the procedure starts with injury to the layer of cells that line the small blood vessels of the lungs.†¦show more content†¦Complete blood count (CBC): Tests for infection, elevated hemoglobin, and anemia B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP): A marker for heart failure† other intense tests can be done to make the diagnosis much clearer such as Doppler echocardiogram, this uses sound waves to show the function of the right ventricle to measure the blood flow through the heart valves, and then calculate the systolic pulmonary artery pressure. There is also an X-ray, this is done on the chest. This can show any increase or decrease in size of the right ventricle and arteries. A simpler test such as the 6-minute walk test, this controls exercise patience level and blood oxygen saturation level during exercise. There is also a Pulmonary function test, this seeks for other lung conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis compared to others. Also there is a Polysomnogram or overnight oximetry, this monitors sleep apnea (results in low oxygen levels at night). Also a right heart catheterization, this measures various heart pressures ( inside the pulmonary arteries, coming from the left side of the heart), the rate at which the heart is able to pump blood, and finds any leaks between the right and left sides of the heart. Theres also other scans such as a ventilation perfusion scan, this looks for blood clots along the pathway to the lungs. OtherShow MoreRelatedEffectiveness Of Health And Social Care2541 Words   |  11 PagesM2 Discuss how the practitioners and agencies involved in the care pathways work together to provide the care needed for both physiological disorders Introduction In this assignment I will discuss the effectiveness of health and social care practitioners and agencies working together to deliver the care pathway for one of the chosen physiological disorders. The disorder I have chosen to evaluate is diabetes type 2 diabetes. Strengths Working in a multidisciplinary team means the patient with typeRead MoreLearning and Social Care Essay examples30870 Words   |  124 Pagescode 500/8887/7/C2 Book code 500/8887/7/C3 Publication dates Version 2.0 July 2010 Version 3.0 September 2010 Version 4.0 October 2010 Version 5.0 December 2010 Version 6.0 May 2011 Version 7.0 December 2011 Publisher Council for Awards in Care, Health and Education Apex House 81 Camp Road St Albans Hertfordshire AL1 5GB Telephone: 0845 347 2123 Registered Company No: 2887166 Registered Charity No: 1036232 Printed in England by Ocà © (UK) Limited Ocà © House Chatham Way Brentwood Essex CM14 4DZ Read MoreLeadership for Health and Social Care and Children65584 Words   |  263 PagesQUALIFICATION HANDBOOK Level 5 Diploma in Leadership for Health and Social Care and Children and Young People’s Services (England) (3978-51/52/53/54/55/56) December 2011 Version 2.1 (July 2011) Qualification at a glance Subject area City Guilds number Age group approved Entry requirements Assessment Fast track Level 5 Diploma in Leadership for Health and Social Care and Children and Young People’s Services (England) 3978 19+ There are no entry requirements Portfolio of Evidence, PracticalRead MoreFundamentals of Hrm263904 Words   |  1056 Pagesat Ethics 22 Summary 23 Demonstrating Comprehension: Questions for Review 24 Key Terms 24 HRM Workshop 25 Linking Concepts to Practice: Discussion Questions 25 Developing Diagnostic and Analytical Skills 25 Case 1: Work/Life Balance at Baxter 25 Working with a Team: Understanding Diversity Issues 25 Learning an HRM Skill: Guidelines for Acting Ethically 26 Enhancing Your Communication Skills 26 ETHICAL ISSUES IN HRM: Invasion of Privacy? 9 WORKPLACE ISSUES: We Are Now Entering the BlogosphereRead MoreStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 PagesSenior Operations Supervisor: Arnold Vila Operations Specialist: Cathleen Petersen Senior Art Director: Janet Slowik Art Director: Kenny Beck Text and Cover Designer: Wanda Espana OB Poll Graphics: Electra Graphics Cover Art: honey comb and a bee working / Shutterstock / LilKar Sr. Media Project Manager, Editorial: Denise Vaughn Media Project Manager, Production: Lisa Rinaldi Full-Service Project Management: Christian Holdener, S4Carlisle Publishing Services Composition: S4Carlisle Publishing Services

The Unique Film-making of Tim Burton Free Essays

Tim Burton uses diegetic sounds, lighting, and high angles to express his creative cinematic style. He uses these various techniques to show how he differs from other directors styles. His choice of using these techniques relates back to his childhood, Burton was a reclusive child and very different while growing up. We will write a custom essay sample on The Unique Film-making of Tim Burton or any similar topic only for you Order Now In the movies Edward Scissorhands and The Corpse Bride, he applies these various techniques. In the movie Edward Scissorhands, Burton uses diegetic sounds to foreshadow upcoming events in the movie. He uses the snip of the scissors when Peg, the Avon lady, was in the what seemed deserted mansion to foreshadow what/who Edward was relating to the scissors. Also in Edward Scissorhands, he used the diegetic chopping of the lettuce to accompany a flashback of Edwards past. This helped us understand more about Edward and how he became to be. In The Corpse Bride, Burton uses the diegetic sounds of Victor’s vows to also foreshadow the upcoming events with the corpse bride. Later on in that scene he used the cracking sound of the hand of Emily to show that she was now â€Å"alive†. The â€Å"I do† of Emily was included to show that Victor was now â€Å"married† to Emily. Tim Burton used a series of various types of lighting in the movies Edward Scissorhands, and The Corpse Bride. In Edward Scissorhands, he used a lot of high key lighting in the town, which had very bright pastel colors. He also used high key in the jail during the conversation between Edward and Peg. He used this so we, as the audience, could focus on the scene playing out. In Corpse Bride, How to cite The Unique Film-making of Tim Burton, Essay examples

Abortion Controversial Hot Topic That Has Been Around free essay sample

Abortion, a controversial hot topic that has been around for years. Whether it be for, or against abortion, the side you wish to choose will have many debates associated with it. Not to be confused with the English word, miscarriage, which is the spontaneous, unintentional loss of an immature embryo, or fetus before viability. Abortion is the removal of the embryo, or fetus from the uterus purposely. This may be done if the country, or state that the woman lives in permits the procedure to take place. Although some countries prohibit abortion, there are many places that will do it illegally. About 80% of women have made up their minds before even setting out and seeking an abortion, even though the Abortion Act implies that the decision to terminate pregnancy is one that is made due to medical issues, and gives the woman no choice. If a practitioners decides that the reason for an abortion is reasonable, they will sign a certificate, and then the woman is referred to a private clinic, or gynecological department. Usually, the second signature is usually that of a staff member or that clinic, or hospital. The entire procedure is discussed, and counseled beforehand. It is recommended to allow time between leaving, and making the final decision for termination. Some woman may change their minds at any given time, and may decide she after all did not want an abortion. There are many various ways to perform an abortion. One way is done by drugs that make the uterus contract, and expel the embryo. This seems to be the more safe methods than most. Terminating a pregnancy is much easier to be done before ten weeks. Deciding to have an abortion later than ten weeks becomes difficult, and perhaps more dangerous Another method is known as Dilation and Extraction ( more commonly known as D and X). This is mostly used when the fetus is roughly from 4 to 9 months in the womb. To identify how the fetus is facing, an ultrasound is given to the mother. The person performing the abortion inserts forceps through the cervical canal into the uterus. Then, one of the babyaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s legs are grasped, so that the babyaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s feet are out of the cervix first, and the face is down in the breech position. Whether a medical, or surgical method is used is depended to some extent on the hospital. This may be argued in favor of either method, but choosing a medical method means that anesthetics are not involved where as a surgical method does. The majority of the babyaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s is pulled out of the birth canal, excluding the head. This is because the head is too large to pass through the cervix. At this point, the baby is alive. The abortionist inserts his finger in a hook position over the babyaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s shoulder, and holds the womanaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s cervix away from the babyaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s neck. A blunt tipped surgical scissor is then inserted into the base of the skull. After, the tips are spread apart to enlarge the wound. A suction catheter is then placed into the skull, and the brain matter is sucked out. The skull deflated, and the babyaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s head then passes through the cervix easily. Assuming that is it done correctly, modern abortion procedures are safe. The risk of a woman dying from an abortion is less than one in 100,000. Surprisingly, the risk of a woman dying from giving birth is 13 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies Some argue that abortion access is necessary. Contraceptives are not always easily obtainable. Women need doctor prescriptions to buy most birth control methods. A few of those methods are the patch, the shot, the pill, or the diaphragm. Roughly half of all large group-insurance plans do not cover most, or all forms of birth control. A study that was conducted in about July, or August of 2001 by Guttmacher Institute on heath care insurers found that 75% of insured woman lacked contraceptive coverage. By 2009, 17 million US woman were completely un insured. Abortions are very common. 1 out every 3 women in the US have an abortion by the time they are 45 years years old. Motherhood should never be viewed as a punishment for having sex. President Barack Obama said during a campaign speech in Johnson, Pennsylvania, aâ‚ ¬? I have two daughters. Iaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢m going to teach them the first values about morals, but if they make a mistake, I donaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t want them punished with a baby. â‚ ¬? Others may argue that abortions eliminates the potential life of a human being. They say that the US would be a completely different country if the mothers of our nations great presidents, athletes, and our nationaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s heroes had chosen abortion. Unborn babies are innocent human beings from the time of conc eption. They have fundamental rights to life, which should entirely be protected. According to Janet L. Hopson, a science textbook writer and instructor at San Francisco State University, the fetus is capable of feeling pain by the twelfth week. Essentially, abortion is view as wrong because pain is inflected on a living, and defenseless human being. Depending on your view points, abortion may, or may not be the best thing in your opinion. If you are a woman seeking an abortion, whether it is a medical, or personal reason for choosing to terminate a pregnancy,you should look over every single aspect of abortion, including each, and every method. Being informed on both views is the best thing you can do to make a educated decision for you, and your fetuses life