Creating Two Dimensional Arrays in Ruby

The following article is part of a series.  For more articles in this series, see  Cloning the Game 2048 in Ruby.  For the complete and final code,  see the gist. Now that we know how the algorithm will work, its time to think about the data this algorithm will work on. There are two main choices here: a flat array of some kind, or a two-dimensional array. Each has their advantages, but before we make a decision, we need to take something into account. DRY Puzzles A common technique in working with grid-based puzzles where you have to look for patterns like this is to write one version of the algorithm that works on the puzzle from left to right and then rotate the entire puzzle around four times. This way, the algorithm only has to be written once and it only has to work from left to right. This dramatically reduces the complexity and size of the hardest part of this project. Since well be working on the puzzle from left to right, it makes sense to have the rows represented by arrays. When making a two dimensional array in Ruby (or, more accurately, how you want it to be addressed and what the data actually means), you have to decide whether you want a stack of rows (where each row of the grid is represented by an array) or a stack of columns (where each column is an array). Since were working with rows, well choose rows. How this 2D array is rotated, well get to after we actually construct such an array. Constructing Two Dimensional Arrays The Array.new method can take an argument defining the size of the array that you want. For example, Array.new(5) will create an array of 5 nil objects. The second argument gives you a default value, so Array.new(5, 0) will give you the array [0,0,0,0,0]. So how do you create a two dimensional array? The wrong way, and the way I see people trying often is to say Array.new( 4, Array.new(4, 0) ). In other words, an array of 4 rows, each row being an array of 4 zeroes. And this appears to work at first. However, run the following code: It looks simple. Make a 4x4 array of zeroes, set the top-left element to 1. But print it and we get†¦ It set the entire first column to 1, what gives? When we made the arrays, the inner-most call to Array.new gets called first, making a single row. A single reference to this row is then duplicated 4 times to fill the outer-most array. Each row is then referencing the same array. Change one, change them all. Instead, we need to use the third way of creating an array in Ruby. Instead of passing a value to the Array.new method, we pass a block. The block is executed every time the Array.new method needs a new value. So if you were to say Array.new(5) { gets.chomp }, Ruby will stop and ask for input 5 times. So all we need to do is just create a new array inside this block. So we end up with Array.new(4) { Array.new(4,0) }. Now lets try that test case again. And it does just as youd expect. So even though Ruby doesnt have support for two-dimensional arrays, we can still do what we need. Just remember that the top-level array holds references to the sub-arrays, and each sub-array should refer to a different array of values. What this array represents is up to you. In our case, this array is laid out as rows. The first index is the row were indexing, from top to bottom. To index the top row of the puzzle, we use a[0], to index the next row down we use a[1]. To index a specific tile in the second row, we use a[1][n]. However, if we had decided on columns†¦ it would be the same thing. Ruby doesnt have any idea what were doing with this data, and since it doesnt technically support two-dimensional arrays, what were doing here is a hack. Access it only by convention and everything will hold together. Forget what the data underneath is supposed to be doing and everything can fall apart real fast.

Case #1 Lakeside - 1563 Words

Case #1 [Type the document subtitle] 2/16/2014 Review Comments Summary Discussion Questions – 2 Hours Exercise – 1.5 Hours Table of Contents Title Page†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. Review Comments†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦........1 Team Summary †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..2 Table of Contents†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..†¦.3 Discussion Questions†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦...4 Question #1†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..4 Question #2†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..4 Question #3†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..4 Question #4†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..4 Question #5†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..4 Question†¦show more content†¦Second, Lakeside may feel the auditor isn’t necessarily on their side, even though as an auditor we need to stay neutral and that our obligation is to the stakeholder in the company. Case 1 - Exercise 1 Abernethy and Chapman Fraud Risk Factors Client: Benjamin M. Rogers Prepared by: Date: 2/16/2014 List the fraud risk factors that the CPA firm might encounter if they accept this audit engagement. Be sure to include a discussion of all items that will probably require special attention during the audit. For each of these fraud risk factors, indicate how the auditor should follow up on each potential problem if the engagement is accepted. Use the following formal Fraud Risk Factors Auditor Follow Up Material misstatement that existed on reporting historical cost on the new building. Approach this subject right away and speaking with the previous auditors for what they experienced on this issue. Rogers Corporation to construct the latest facility for Lakeside This issue needs more information and legal terms on whether or not this is allowable. The audit option that was rendered on the books for year ending in 2011 With Rogers refusing to write down the reported value of the property can cause some confliction between any auditor and owner. Talking to Rogers and the previous auditor is the best way to get to the bottom of this issue and see who is at fault. Not as much of aShow MoreRelatedWorkshop 11119 Words   |  5 Pages1. Why would the owners of Lakeside as well as the company’s banks require that an independent CPA firm perform the annual audit? The reason that there needs to be an independent auditor is so that they can remain unbiased. It could potentially make them less independent if they are auditing both Lakeside and the bank in which Lakeside is taking loans from. The auditing firm needs to stay independent in mind and appearance and this may be an issue when auditing both. 2. This case implies thatRead MoreWhy Would The Owners Of Lakeside1657 Words   |  7 Pagesï » ¿1. Why would the owners of Lakeside, as well as the company’s banks, require that an annual audit may be made by an independent CPA firm? Auditing in general, is necessary because of the existence of Information risk or the risk of unreliable information. Owners of lakeside may own the company but they are not closely involved in managing the business with the exception of Rogers, the only owner involved actively in the business’ day to day operations. So, an independent audit for non-managingRead MoreLakeside Auditing728 Words   |  3 PagesExercises Exercise 1 Following his discussion with Rogers, Andrews talked briefly with Carole Mitchell concerning the warehouse expansion. She indicated that Art Heyman had already prepared an analysis of the repairs and Maintenance account (see Exhibit 9-4). In addition, based on the debits to the Warehouse account (see Exhibit 9-5) he had located the invoices substantiating the capitalized transactions (see Exhibit 9-7) while reviewing the invoices received by Lakeside subsequent to the end ofRead MoreCase 5 2988 Words   |  4 Pagesï » ¿Case 5 - Exercise 2 Abernethy and Chapman Internal Control Evaluation Client: Prepared by: Date: Exhibit 5-2 is a portion of the audit program that Mitchell designed to test the operating efficiency of controls in the revenue and cash receipts cycle. For each individual test, indicate the anticipated results if the control procedure is working properly. Also, if the control is not functioning properly, list the potential problems that exist. Use the following format for your response: StepRead MoreEssay about Lakeside Hospital Case1244 Words   |  5 PagesLakeside Hospital A hospital just can’t afford to operate a department at 50 percent capacity. If we average 20 dialysis pa- tients, it costs us $425 per treatment, and we’re only paid $250. If a department can’t cover its costs, includ- ing a fair share of overhead, it isn’t self-sufficient and I don’t think we should carry it. Peter Lawrence, M.D., Director of Specialty Services at Lakeside Hospital, was addressing James Newell, M.D., Chief Nephrologist of Lakeside’s Renal Division, concerningRead MoreStudents At The University Of Alabama1033 Words   |  5 Pagesmore students to have places to live in the future. Providing housing on campus for nearly 8,000 freshman students is nearly impossible. The Presidential Villages house 1,840 students. Blout, Bryant, Bryce Lawn, Burke, Friedman, The Highlands, Lakeside, Parham, Paty, Ridgecrest, Riverside, Somerville, and Tutwiler house roughly 5,000 more students. These freshman options barely fit the ever growing number of new students coming to Alabama. The University of Alabama board of trustees recently approvedRead MoreLakeside Case 27160 Words   |  29 PagesFebruary 7, 2013 Abernathy and Chapman Wallace Andrews Lakeside 1235 Sentry Drive Richmond, Virginia 66266 Dear Mr. Wallace, We have researched the issues that were discussed regarding the possibility of Lakeside Company going public and the ramifications this action would have on their desirability as a client. We have also analyzed Lakeside Company’s financial statements to evaluate the possibility of misstatements. Attached, you will find our report discussing these issues. PleaseRead MoreBill Gates Is A Frugal, Persevering, Supreme Computer Geek987 Words   |  4 PagesMary Maxwell. The Gates family had a close relationship and a competitive spirit. As a child, Monopoly and Risk were his favorite games to play. Bill also loved to read. At thirteen his parents enrolled him in the Lakeside School preparatory in Seattle. While attending Lakeside School in Seattle, Gates was discovered computers for the first time. He was so intrigued with using the computer that he began ditching classes to work in the school’s computer room, alongside another student, Paul AllenRead MoreMr Zhang42340 Words   |  170 PagesThe Lakeside Company: Auditing Cases SOLUTIONS MANUAL 11e Table of Contents John M. Trussel and J. Douglas Frazer A Not on Ethics, Fraud and Sox Questions 2 A Note on Research Assignments 4 Introductory Case 6 Case 1 13 Case 2 21 Case 3 29 Case 4 39 Case 5 51 Case 6 67 Case 7 74 Case 8 83 Case 9 92 Case 10Read MorePros Of Rural, Suburban, And Urban Public Schools1240 Words   |  5 PagesJohn Dayton s (2007) article in Nebraska Law Review states that, many judicial opinions have recognized the disadvantaged circumstances of rural schools (p. 102). D. There have been many court cases involving the state and rural schools, including Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter, a court case from the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1993. In Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter, a coalition of small school districts, superintendents, school board members, parents, and students alleged

Leading Case of Brunninghausen v Glavanics †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Leading Case of Brunninghausen v Glavanics. Answer: In the leading case of Brunninghausen v Glavanics the appellant was the only active director and also majority shareholder. In the same company the respondent was the sleeping director and shareholder. The relations between the two directors, who are parties to the present case, became sour and both parties lost trust into each other. The respondent retained his position of the director as a formality as a result he was not given any information regarding the company's affairs. The parties started negotiating to resolve the differences between them. The appellant, during the negotiation proceedings, received a proposal from a third party to purchase the assets of the company. The appellant negotiated with the party without giving information to the respondent. On the other side, the respondent got ready to sell his shares to the appellant at a rate which was much below the same rate which was paid by the party purchasing the company. The judge at the trial court held that the appella nt had a fiduciary duty being a director towards the respondent being a shareholder. The judge also held that the appellant committed breach of his duty by not disclosing the facts of the other negotiation that he had with the third party. The Judge ordered to conduct an inquiry in order to determine the amount of compensation that is to be paid and as a final award ordered compensation to the respondent (Brunninghausen v Glavanics (1999) 199 NSWCA). As per the law of corporations a shareholder can sue the directors on behalf of the company in case of breach of obligations (Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 236). The court in this case observed that the omission to recognize the presence of a fiduciary relationship between a director and a shareholder of a company in turn gives recognition to the separate legal personality of the company as distinct from its members. It is to be noted that this does not gives rise to a presumption that no fiduciary obligation at all existed. The relationship of that of a director and shareholder of a company is not a status based fiduciary relationship rather it is more fact based. In these cases where the courts recognized the existence of fiduciary duty on the part of the director towards the shareholders were that in these cases there were either few directors or few shareholders where sometimes shareholders were also directors or the companies were either companies carrying on family business or are private companies (Flannigan, cited in Nosworthy 2010). The court held that the typical characteristics of the fiduciary relationships are that the party under the obligation agrees to act in the interest of his counterpart which will affect the interest of the latter. This fiduciary relationship gives the party under the obligation pleasure to the disadvantage of the other person who is at a vulnerable position to be abused by the former (Hospital Products Limited v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 64 HCA). In some cases the courts have laid down that a fiduciary relation between the director and the shareholders has arisen. Some of the cases are where a director buys the shares from the shareholders, or at the time of winding up of the company or where the share issue power has been used improperly (Flannigan, cited in Nosworthy 2010). The court held that in order to grant or reserve reasonable remedies, the significance of the commercial personality considerably reduces in two conditions, firstly, when the directors of the company deal with the shareholders for the buying or selling of the shares, chiefly in cases of direct dealings where the deal is not done anonymously on stock exchanges and secondly, when there are very few shareholders and directors and they have close relations. Here the intention of the judge may be criticized on two grounds. Firstly that the equitable doctrines and remedies operate irrespective of the corporate structure that has been given by the Corporations Act ((Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 185 and 193). Secondly, the factors which have been given by the judge are irrelevant to the corporate structure as given under the Corporation Act. The view of the judge therefore can be criticized on the grounds that he has redefined the types of corporate structure as given under the Corporation Act in an inappropriate manner. The Corporations Act states that a proprietary company shall have only director and one member (Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 114 and 201A(1)). Also the Companies Act demands the same requirement (Companies Act 1981 (Cth) s 219(1)). Further, the judge may also be criticized for suggesting that there is, on the basis of the number of directors and shareholders in the company, a sliding scale of commercial personality and the obligations that the officers owe to the company (Nosworthy 2010). The appellate court in the present case held that besides the general rule that a director of a company owes a fiduciary duty towards the company and not towards its shareholders, in cases involving direct interest of the shareholder precluding the interest of the company, the director owes a fiduciary obligation towards the shareholder. The court also held that it is the fiduciary duty of the director of a company towards its shareholders, while making any negotiations for the buying or selling of shares, to disclose all the facts to the shareholder which may affect his decision to buy or sell the shares. The general rule regarding the directors duty towards the shareholders of the company is that in the day-to-day business of the company the director of the company owes a fiduciary obligation towards the company alone. The basis behind forming this rule was that the directors would be put in an unfair position if they had to disclose confidential discussions to the shareholders of the company (Percival v Wright (1902) 401 Ch 2). The courts, in certain cases, have recognized some fiduciary obligations that a director of a company owes towards its shareholders. A possibility may exist that directors of a company who seek additional capital from their shareholders might have a fiduciary obligation towards its shareholders (Nocton v Ashburton (1914) 932 AC). In another case the court observed that the directors of the company selling the business owe an obligation towards their shareholders and a duty of not to deceive or mislead forms a part of such obligation. Further the court also accepted the fact that if a shareholder of such a company is misled to accept an offer, the co-shareholders may be prejudiced. Therefore if the minority shareholders are wrongfully forced to purchase as a consequence of a breach of obligation on behalf of the directors of a company, the former may make a complaint (Gething v Kilner (1972) 337 WLR 1). Here in the present case the defendant had a special knowledge which was acquired by him during the time when he was managing the company about a profitable sale of his business. This occasion was available particularly to the company although the deal was that of sale of its shares. The existence of a fiduciary obligation must be displayed by the existence of a relationship itself which includes the facts that the defendant was the only active director in the company, the plaintiff was the only other shareholder in the company, they had close familial relations, the interference of their mother- in-law to reconcile their issues and the privilege that the defendant had, due to his position, with regard to the sale of the business of the company to the third party. If any fiduciary obligation arises from the above mentioned facts, such obligation must be one that is imposed by law. The defendant has done no such thing which enable the court to assume that any fiduciary obligation existed on the part of the defendant. The judge was of the view that there was as no such relationship of fiduciary nature between the defendant and the plaintiff but the defendant was under an obligation to disclose to the plaintiff the facts of the offer of purchase of business made by the third party. It is to be noted that the court denied the existence of any such duty in the case of Percival v Wright and held that the case was totally different from the present one. If the judgment of Percival v Wright is not followed then it can be held that there was a fiduciary obligation on the part of the defendant towards the plaintiff. In the context of the present case a statement with regard to the duty of the defendant towards the company for the transactions between him and the plaintiff with respect to shares is of no sense. This duty does not carry any practical content and the company cannot undergo any kind of loss by the breach of such obligation. Where the director of the company owes a fiduciary obligation towards the company, the former does not holds a parallel or identical obligation towards the shareholders of the company regarding the same subject matter. But this must not exclude the existence of a fiduciary obligation on the part of the director of the company towards the shareholders with regard to the selling of shares in comparison to any obligation that such director owes towards the company. Many of the customary fiduciary relationships like that of a principal and an agent or that of a lawyer and his client are formed by the free will of the parties. In these relationships the party to whom the obligation is owed has the right to waive them whenever they want provided the contractual restraints are complied with. With regard to other relationships like that of a guardian and a ward or that of a parent and a child or that of a trustee and a beneficiary come into existence either under the process of law or by the act of others. These category of relationships is not formed by the free will of the parties neither the party to whom the other owes a fiduciary duty has right to terminate the same. Therefore the plaintiff, being a shareholder, in the instant case had no power or legal right to inspect the accounts of the company but he had right to ask for the copies of the accounts which he failed to exercise. The inspection could not have provided any suggestions with regard to the actual price of the shares. He had no right to be informed about the negotiations regarding the sale of the business of the company. The defendant who was the sole active director of the company is said to have acquired an advantageous position with respect to the plaintiff. He had liberty to disclose the facts about the undergoing negotiations regarding the sale of the business of the company to the plaintiff but was under no compulsion to do the same. Accordingly the defendant got into a position whereby he could practically affect the interest of the shareholder and with regard to the negotiations between them the defendant also got into a position disadvantageous to the plaintiff. The court also opined that as after 1983 the director failed to act in the interest of the shareholder while in the case of a proprietary company the director owes a fiduciary obligation towards the shareholders of the company. The director owes a fiduciary obligation towards its shareholders to promote the interest of the latter while making any negotiations regarding the takeover or acquisition of the company. Conflict arises where the parties keep their personal interest over their joint interest. A conflict could only arise if they prefer their personal interests over their joint interest. This conduct duty. The views of this case in a latter case where the court held that in a quasi- partnership where the status of the partners is dead- locked, the directors fall in a fiduciary relationship with one another as in the case of the company (Mesenberg v Cord Industrial Recruiters Pty Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 128) . Again in Hadid v Lenfest Communications the court interpreted the judgment of the instant case to mean that a legal duty to disclose certain facts is imposed upon the director to disclose the facts of 'dominating importance' only when the shareholder reasonably expects the same to be disclosed (Hadid v Lenfest Communications (1999) 1798 FCA). In a recent judgment the Chancery Division of the High Court of UK summarized that the directors owe a fiduciary obligation towards the shareholders of the company only in cases of special relationship. The judge referring the law of UK and that of overseas explained that the directors owe a fiduciary duty towards the company only (Sharp Others v Blank Others (2015) 3220 EWHC (Ch)). The judge held that although a director owes fiduciary duties towards the shareholders of the company, this obligation arises not because he is the director of the company but because there exist a special relationship between the director of the company and its shareholders. References Brunninghausen v Glavanics (1999) NSWCA. Companies Act 1981 (Cth). Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Gething v Kilner (1972) WLR 1. Hadid v Lenfest Communications (1999) FCA. Hospital Products Limited v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) HCA. Mesenberg v Cord Industrial Recruiters Pty Ltd (1996) NSWLR 39. Nosworthy, B 2010, Directors ?duciary obligations: Is the shareholder an appropriate bene?ciary?, Australian Journal of Corporate Law, vol. 24, pp. 299-300. Nocton v Ashburton (1914) AC. Percival v Wright (1902) 2 (Ch). Sharp Others v Blank Others (2015) EWHC (Ch).

E-commerce Business for Physical and Activities -myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theE-commerce Business for Physical and Activities. Answer: E-commerce has become the part and parcel of the modern day lifestyle. One of the most significant platforms where the application of e-commerce is vividly seen is the retail stores. In order to make sure that all the business operations are taking place in the right order, both physical and online activities are needed (Dixon and Marston 2002). The trend over the past few years say that online retail marketing is growing. One major reason behind this is that it eases the lives of the consumers. In other words, the shopping experience of the consumers is made much easier and smoother. It is suggested to all the retail stores that they must start thinking about newer innovative ideas. These ideas make them popular among their consumers. There are companies like the digital windows, made by Kate Spade in New York that offers the consumers a very large touch screen monitor. It is through this touchscreen monitor that they showcased all their products and the product details. The customers could easily see the products and order them via the online purchasing method. Then again, a large mob gathering outside the Apple store for several days, just to buy the first launched Apple iPod or I phone again proves that people are concerned about the physical purchasing than online purchasing. However, on an average, the demand for e-commerce or online activities is much stronger. Hence, the retail stores must now adopt the phy-gital concept in their stores (Liao and Shi 2009). In other words, it must be a mixture of both physical as well as e-commerce related activities. ASDA is a well-known retail market in U.K. The main motif is to make the lives of their customers easier and happier. They have recently started their online pages and mobile apps in order to smoothly carry on their business activities. It is through these online pages that they can advertise their products, offers, and discounts related to the products in a very colorful and catchy manner. The e-commerce applications of ASDA are so designed that the customers can easily track the status of their orders. They can even use their order history page for their future purchases. This enables the retail shop to clearly see the behaviors of their targeted customers and take up strategies accordingly (Fang et al 2014). Figure1: e -retailing of ASDA (Source: retailtechnology.co.uk.2014) However, the e-commerce activities in U.K mainly have three important scenarios or ways in which it might affect the future of the retail industry- Divert the offline sales into online channels Effects will vary as per the goods. In order to survive in the present day scenario, the retail stores must use the e-commerce p-platform; else there is no bright future (Huang et al 2006).The E-retailing has both good and bad impacts on the consumers. It is really easy to avoid the time and energy of travelling to the retail store but at the same time, the consumers often fear the uncertainty associated with the same. Hence, it is being suggested that all the retail stores must provide detailed information of their products on the e-commerce sites. They must opt for good advertising and promotion of their products online so that the customers can easily keep faith and confidence in the e retailing business. Reference list Dixon, T. and Marston, A., 2002. The Impact of E-commerce on Retail Real Estate in the UK.Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management,8(2), pp.153-174. Fang, Y., Qureshi, I., Sun, H., McCole, P., Ramsey, E. and Lim, K.H., 2014. Trust, Satisfaction, and Online Repurchase Intention: The Moderating Role of Perceived Effectiveness of E-Commerce Institutional Mechanisms.Mis Quarterly,38(2). Huang, X.D., Gates, W.H., Horvitz, E.J., Goodman, J.T., Brunell, B.A., Dumais, S.T., Flake, G.W., Griffin, T.J. and Hurst-Hiller, O., Microsoft Corporation, 2006.Web-based targeted advertising in a brick-and-mortar retail establishment using online customer information. U.S. Patent Application 11/427,764. Liao, Z. and Shi, X., 2009. Consumer perceptions of internet-based e-retailing: an empirical research in Hong Kong.Journal of Services Marketing,23(1), pp.24-30.