Production Possibility Frontier and Opportunity Cost

Good explanaition of PPF.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5rxIY46J7s



Shape of the PPF and Opportunity Cost: www.netmba.com/econ/micro/production/possibility/

Забавно. :))))
Мама сегодня сказала, что по украинскому ТВ показывали Дэйва Тозлера. Он в Украине нашел невесту. Опа. Примерно 3 с половиной года назад Дэйв, фотограф, пытался ухаживать за мной. Мне он совсем-совсем не подошел (не подходит) по многим причинам. Во-первых, не понравился. Он из тех, о ком думаешь, он среднего рода. Во-вторых, двое детей. На момент нашего знакомства Д. жил в Сиднее. Но собирался переехать к нам в Мельбурн. У него нашлись родственники по материнской линии в Мельбурне. Как раз на момент моего с ним знакомства. Дэйву сейчас 42 года должно быть. Наполовину украинец, но родился в Австралии.
Кстати, моя теория оправдалась. Когда мужчины-иностранцы не могут найти свою половинку в своей стране, они едут в страны третьего мира.
Удачи Дэйву!
Но забавно! :))))

Montecristo Pierced EarringsА эти серьги, пожалуй, еще красивее. И еще длиннее, 9 см. Очень эффектные. 405 AUD.

Новая коллекция Сваровски

Monica Pierced Earrings - очень понравились эти серьги 225 AUD. Хочется их в свою коллекцию. Посмотрю в магазине после приезда.

Swarovski постоянно обновляет свою коллекцию. Новые тенденции - неумирающая классика, черно-белая шанелевская гамма опять и опять в моде. Артистическое движение ‘Chiaroscuro’ (темный блеск), черно-белая тенденция вошла в моду еще в 70х.

Fisher v Bell [1961]

Fisher v Bell [1961] Contract law.

Court High Court,
Date decided 10 November 1960

Fisher v Bell [1961] is a case concerning the requirements of offer and acceptance in the formation of a contract. The case established that, where goods are displayed in a shop together with a price label, such display is treated as an invitation to treat by the seller, and not an offer. The offer is instead made when the customer presents the item to the cashier together with payment. Acceptance occurs at the point the cashier takes payment.

The Defendant displayed a flick knife in the window of his shop next to a ticket bearing the words "Ejector knife – 4s." Under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, section 1(1), it was illegal to manufacture, sell, hire, or offer for sale or hire, or lend to any other person, amongst other things, any knife "which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife". On 14 December 1959, the Claimant, a chief inspector of police force, brought forward information against the Defendant alleging the Defendant has contravened section 1(1) by offering the flick knife for sale.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892]

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] a foundational case in the law of contract.

Court Court - of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date decided 7 December 1892
Citations [1892] EWCA Civ 1, [1893] 1 QB 256

Law of contract. Communication of an offer.
The Carbolic Smokeball Company claimed that if their "smokeball" was taken in the specified manner, the user would not contract influenza. Anyone that did contract the illness was entitled to 100 pounds. To show their sincerity in the matter the company deposited 1000 pounds in the Alliance Bank, Regent street

The advert was placed. The question is could it contain an offer?

Mrs. Louisa Carlill stumbled across an advert for the Smokeball in the Pall Mall Gazette. She purchased the product and took it as intstructed.

However, Mrs. Carlill still contracted influenza...
Mrs. Carlill claimed an award. The Smokeball refused to pay, they said a 100 pounds offer was a mere marketing puff and not intended to have any basis in law of contract.

Mrs.Carlill argued that a contract existed between her and the company.
The company argued that no contract could exist since the advert merely constituted an invitation to treat, not an offer.

The majority judgement of the case disagreed with the Company's arguments.
It was decided that the advert was not an invitation to treat (a pure gimmick) but an offer that could be taken seriously. The court also went on to say that there could be an offer to the whole world and that anyone hearing the offer could accept it.
The deposit of 1000 pounds demonstrated an intention to create legal relations. And, it was said Mrs. Carlill acted to her detriment in using the Smokeball as intructed and so this was considered sufficient consideration.

So, it was decided that a contract did exist between the company and Mrs.Carlill and she subsequently won the case.

The contractual elements discussed in this case have since been used in all cases when determining the formation of a unilateral contract.

ps. Mrs. Carlill died at the age of 96 in 1942 of influenza.



This case is frequently cited as a leading case in the common law of contract. It provides an excellent study of the basic principles of contract and how they relate to every day life.

However, in addition to the contractual remedy afforded to users, the same facts would give rise to a number of additional statutory remedies and punishments were an individual to place an advert in the same terms today.
Firstly, misleading advertising is a criminal offence. Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations [14] (secondary legislation, passed under the European Communities Act 1972), regulation 5 states that a commercial practice is misleading...
"if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful... or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer... even if the information is factually correct"
...in relation to a long list of actions and omissions by sellers. Misleading practices are unfair (r 3) and unfair practices are prohibited (r 4). They are also criminal offences (rr 8-18) and overseen by stringent enforcement mechanisms (rr 19-27).[15] Sellers still have a defence of legitimate "puffery", or that their representations could not be taken seriously (e.g. "this washing powder makes your clothes whiter than white!").
Secondly, although it was not discussed in the case, there was evidence at the time that using the smokeball actually made people more vulnerable to the flu (carbolic acid was put on the poisons register in 1900). The General Product Safety Regulations [16] which are part of a European Union wide consumer protection regime (Directive 2001/95/EC[17]) again provide criminal penalties for unsafe products.
Thirdly, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (which is also part of EU wide regulation under Directive 85/374/EEC[18]) creates a statutory tort of strict liability for defective products that cause any kind of personal injury or death, or damage over £100. This is the primary method for individuals to get compensation for any loss resulting from products. Similar regimes for product liability have developed around the world through statute and tort law since the early twentieth century, one of the leading cases being Donoghue v Stevenson.
Fourthly, under the Enterprise Act 2002, s 8, as in most developed countries, industry members form a trade associations. Businesses are expected to collectively regulate one another by drawing up Codes of Practice and have mechanisms for enforcement before tort or criminal law does.
Viewed with a modern eye, many have argued that Carlill should be seen as redolent of another era, not a foundational case in the law of contract. For instance, Professor Hugh Collins writes the following.

Новелла Матвеева "Предсказание Эгля"

Памяти ЛС... Когда мне было совсем немного лет...

Подойди ко мне, я в твоих глазах вижу капли слез.
В мире много зла, но не надо все принимать всерьез.
Ты не верь земле, черствой и сухой, - верь волне морей.
Пусть она скользит, дразнит и грозит - больше правды в ней.

Пробегут года быстрой чередой, как в ручье вода.
Видишь тот обрыв и простор морской - посмотри туда.
Там, в дали морской, ты увидишь блеск алых парусов.
С берегов крутых ровно в пять часов ты завидишь их.

Это будет бриг из далеких стран, из других широт.
Ровно в пять часов от его бортов шлюпка отойдет,
И прекрасный принц, сказочный герой, нареченный твой,
Весел и умен, строен и высок, ступит на песок.

Слушай, он затем только приплывет, чтоб тебя спасти.
Если он тебя сразу не найдет, ты его прости!
Ступит на песок - радость на лице сильная, как боль, -
Скажет: "Добрый день!" Спросит он: "А где тут живет Ассоль?"

Не грусти, не плачь. Ясных глаз не прячь, слезы с них сотри.
Верь моим словам, чаще по утрам на море смотри.
Верь волне морей. Верь судьбе своей. Час наступит твой.
Ты увидишь блеск алых парусов - это за тобой.

когда глаза устремлены в небо, в них отражается небо. Когда смотрят на болото – отражается болото. Наша воля и выбор в том, куда глаза обратить. Приведи трех друзей в музей – один увидит картину, другой – хорошенькую девушку, а третий – что у охранника носки разные

Голливуд в кармане.
Париж за окном.
В тетраде Лондон.

Меня спасает ром и кока-кола,
Мартини с соком, крепкий черный чай.
Меня спасает старый диск Мадонны
И фразы, брошенные невзначай.
Меня спасают кольца и подвески,
Подруги лучшие и новые друзья.
Меня спасает Федор Достоевский
(Романы про любовь не для меня)
Меня спасают поиски работы,
Дедлайны со статьями, стресс, авралы,
Меня спасает юмор беззаботный
И самый лучший в мире Никомаров
Меня спасает трезвый взгляд на вещи,
Контакты, одноклассники и фотки.
Меня спасает безрассудный вечер
И что моя соперница уродка.
Меня спасает яркая помада,
В два слоя тушь и длинные ресницы
Меня спасают горы шоколада
И ночь, когда ты перестал мне сниться

Вчера по дороге из супермаркета в Ормонд над головой у меня с криком пролетели два белых какаду. Присел один на пальму, птицы от него врассыпную. Он еще и кричать начал истерически. Видимо, просто так. Они что - слышат плохо? Холодно, вроде бы, для попугаев. У нас по-прежнему прохладная, хотя и солнечная погода. Сегодня +14-15.
Слева - снимок какаду, сделанный мной в Сан Килде в начале этого года.

Darrell Lea v Cadbury: the color of purple

Darrell Lea sweets are among my favs.
Yesterday I learnt about the 5-year battle with Cadbury over the colour purple.

The Federal Court recently ruled that Darrell Lea’s use of the colour purple did not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act, as had been alleged by Cadbury.

To summarise a 5-year dispute, in 2003 Cadbury initiated proceedings against Darrell Lea, alleging they engaged misleading or deceptive conduct and passing off by using a shade of purple that closely resembled its own “Cadbury Purple”. In 2006, Justice Heerey of the Federal Court dismissed Cadbury’s claim, finding that Cadbury did not own the colour purple and as such, Darrell Lea was entitled to use the colour as long as it did not convey to the reasonable consumer that it had some connection with Cadbury... Read the full story.
or in the news.
The facts that supported Darrell Lea:
For instance, (1) it was noted that many of Cadbury’s products feature little or no purple; (2) purple was never used by Cadbury in isolation but was always combined with the “Cadbury” script; (3) the names “Darrell Lea” and “Cadbury” are quite distinct; (4) most of Darrell Lea’s retailing occurs on its own premises; other competitors such as Nestlé’s Violet Crumble use purple, and the list goes on.

Darrell Lea: The origins of the Darrell Lea company started in the early 1900s when Harry Lea mastered the art of confectionery making in Perth with his first creation, Bulgarian Rock, which he sold in a simple street pushcart.
Cabury: website.

Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd. [1964]

Foundation case of Negligent mispresentation & misleading or deceptive conduct.
Establishes DISCLAIMER.
Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd.
Hedley Byrne were a firm of advertising agents. A customer, Easipower Ltd, put in a large order. Hedley Byrne wanted to check their financial position, and credit-worthiness, and subsequently asked their bank, National Provincial Bank, to get a report from Easipower’s bank, Heller & Partners Ltd., who replied in a letter that was headed,

"without responsibility on the part of this bank" (this disclaimer saved the bank from being recognized guilty in court)
It said that Easipower was,
"considered good for its ordinary business engagements".

The letter was sent for free. Easipower went into liquidation and Hedley Byrne lost £17,000 on contracts. Hedley Byrne sued Heller & Partners for negligence, claiming that the information was given negligently and was misleading. Heller & Partners argued there was no duty of care owed regarding the statements, and in any case liability was excluded.

Snail In A Bottle [1932]

O'Donaghue versus Stephenson

On the evening of Sunday 26 August 1928 May Donoghue, née M’Alister, boarded a tram in Glasgow for the thirty-minute journey to Paisley. At around ten minutes to nine, she and a friend took their seats in the Wellmeadow Café ... read full story.

On 9 April 1929, Donoghue brought an action against David Stevenson, an aerated water manufacturer in Paisley, in which she claimed £500 as damages for injuries sustained by her through drinking ginger beer which had been manufactured by him. The case was settled in court, and the manufacturer was held liable for damages as he owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer - from that judgment onwards the particular caselaw has been founded and has been exercised through precedent.

The leading judgment was delivered on 26 May 1932 by Lord Atkin. The most famous section was his explanation of the "neighbour" principle, which was derived from the Christian principle of "loving your neighbour" (see James 2:8 and cf. the Parable of the Good Samaritan):

"A man has a Duty of Care to conduct himself in such a way as to avoid harm to others, where a reasonable man would have seen that such harm could occur".

The elements were never in fact proved, it was never proved that there was in fact a decomposed snail in the ginger beer bottle. It was never proved that she had consumed the fluid. It was never proved that she became ill as a result of that fluid.