Personal Financial Plan - Part IV Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Personal Financial Plan - Part IV - Essay Example Acting in an ethical manner is important when dealing with investments. An example of an unethical and illegal act in the investment world is insider trading. Insider trading occurs when a person receives privileged information and uses that information to gain an advantage in the stock market (Teweles, Bradley, Teweles, 1992). Investing has risk and rewards. Investments that have higher risk also have higher reward. Risk adverse investors avoid risk and are satisfied with a small return on investment. Opportunity cost refers to the opportunity forgone when choosing a decision. For example a person that works as a hot dog vendor has the opportunity cost of the amount of money he could make working for the private industry. Savings and investments are impacted by the time value of money. The time value of money is a concept that quantifies the depreciation of money over time. Money loses value over time due to inflation. The present value of $1000 at a 4% rate after ten years is

Judicial Review Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Judicial Review - Case Study Example Some of the most basic and fundamental tenets of the legal and political systems where such decisions emanate from the Prime Minister, require careful scrutiny. Any alleged breach of the rule of the law raises an important and justifiable legal issue after due consideration to the concern regarding judicially cognizable standards. (The rule of Law). The High Court oversees the decisions of public bodies and officials including courts by resorting to judicial review. Grounds of judicial review are ultra vires. If the contents of the decisions are outside the power of the pubic body that made it, then the court may declare it ultra vires. For example, if a magistrate court decides to hear a decision, which is indictable only, then this would be ultra vires. This means that the body reaching the decision in respect of a complaint, was biased, or the applicant was not given a fair opportunity to be heard. The test of Wednesbury unreasonableness - if a decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable public body could have reached the decision, and then it may be successfully challenged. This is a narrow test of reasonableness that severely limits the court's power to supervise the executive. The principle evolved during the course of the hearing in Associated Picture Houses Ltd V. Wednesbury Corporation (1948). If the decision interferes with Human Rights then the courts generally require stronger proof that the decision was reasonable. There has been debate as to whether a doctrine of proportionality would be a better test compared to reasonableness. Irrelevant consideration - If the courts consider that the public body took into account irrelevant consideration then that decision may be subject to judicial review. In R v. Somerset County Council expart Fewings (1995), the council passed a resolution prohibiting stag hunting on its land. This ban was successfully challenged because this ban considered the desirability and morality of hunting while deciding, which was deemed to be outside the ambit of its statutory powers. Unlike the appeal procedure, judicial review does not look into the merits of the case. In addition to any of the ordinary civil law remedies (damages, an injunction or a declaration) the high court may order a public law remedy only available through judicial review proceedings called prerogative orders; certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Prerogative remedies are discretionary. Judicial review forms the basis of a modern democracy. As a department of state, the judiciary is charged with the constitutional duty to control abuse of power by the state, its officials and emanations. In a democracy the rule of law, itself legitimizes judicial review. An examination of judicial review requires consideration in particular of four matters, namely the principle of the separation of powers, the rule of law, the principle of constitutionality or legality and the reach of judicial review. The brief facts of this case are that in 1974 the respondent, Somerset County Council, appropriated land, which had been used by the Quantock Staghounds, since the 1920s. In 1993 a report had been completed which urged the council to come to a decision based on ethics, animal welfare and social considerations and it was decided to ban stag hunting on the land. In this connection, Laws J found that the resolution had been passed