Saint Margaret of Scotland Queen and Reformer

Known for:  Queen Consort of Scotland (married to Malcolm III -- Malcolm Canmore -- of Scotland), Patroness of Scotland, reforming the Church of Scotland. Grandmother of the Empress Matilda. Dates:  Lived ~1045 - 1093.   Born about 1045 (widely varying dates are given), probably in Hungary.  Married Malcolm III King of Scotland about 1070.  Died November 16, 1093, Edinburgh Castle, Scotland.  Canonized: 1250 (1251?).  Feast Day: June 10.   Traditional Feast Day in Scotland: November 16. Also Known As:  The Pearl of Scotland (pearl in Greek is margaron), Margaret of Wessex Heritage Father of Margaret of Scotland was Edward the Exile. He was the son of King Edmund II Ironside of England, who was in turn son of Ethelred II the Unready. Her brother was  Edward the Atheling.Mother of Margaret of Scotland was Agatha of Hungary, who was related to Gisela, wife of St. Stephen of HungaryMargaret of Scotlands brother was Edgar the Atheling, the only one of the Anglo-Saxon princes to survive the Norman invasion, acknowledged as King of England by some but never crowned. Early Years of Exile Margaret was born while her family was in exile in Hungary during the reign in England of the Viking kings. She returned with her family in 1057, then they fled again, this time to Scotland, during the Norman Conquest of 1066. Marriage Margaret of Scotland met her future husband, Malcolm Canmore, when she was fleeing William  the Conquerors invading army in 1066 with her brother, Edward the Atheling, who had ruled briefly but had never been crowned. Her  ship was wrecked on the Scottish coast. Malcolm Canmore was the son of King Duncan. Duncan had been killed by Macbeth, and Malcolm in turn defeated and killed Macbeth after living for some years in England -- a series of events fictionalized by Shakespeare. Malcolm had been married previously to Ingibjorg, the daughter of the Earl of Orkney. Malcolm invaded England at least five times. William the Conqueror forced him to swear allegiance in 1072 but Malcolm died in a skirmish with the English forces of King William II Rufus in 1093. Only three days later, his queen, Margaret of Scotland, also died. Margaret of Scotlands Contributions to History Margaret of Scotland is known to history for her work to reform the Scottish church by bringing it into line with Roman practices and replacing Celtic practices. Margaret brought many English priests to Scotland as one method of achieving this goal. She was a supporter of Archbishop Anselm. Margaret of Scotlands Children and Grandchildren Of the eight children of Margaret of Scotland, one, Edith, renamed Matilda or Maud and known as Matilda of Scotland, married Henry I of England, uniting the Anglo-Saxon royal line with the Norman royal line. Henry and Matilda of Scotlands daughter, widow of the Holy Roman Emperor, the Empress Matilda, was named Henry Is heir, though her paternal cousin Stephen seized the crown and she was only able to win her son, Henry II, the right to succeed. Three of her sons -- Edgar, Alexander I, and David I -- ruled as kings of Scotland. David, the youngest, reigned for almost 30 years. Her other daughter, Mary, married the Count of Boulogne and Marys daughter Matilda of Boulogne, a maternal cousin of the Empress Matilda,  became Queen of England as wife of King Stephen. After Her Death A biography of St. Margaret appeared soon after her death. It is usually credited to Turgot, Archbishop of St. Andrews, but is sometimes said to have been written by Theodoric, a monk. Of her relics, Mary, Queen of Scots, later had possession of Saint Margarets head. Descendants of Margaret of Scotland Descendants of Margaret of Scotland and Duncan reigned in Scotland, except for a brief reign after Duncans death by his brother, until 1290, with the death of another Margaret, known as the Maid of Norway. Related: Anglo-Saxon and Viking Queens of England

The Rabbit Proof Fence, Remembering Babylon, And Puddn

Follow the Rabbit Proof Fence, Remembering Babylon, and Puddn’head Wilson all contain numerous references to borders of various kinds, both literal and figurative. Focusing on two of the above texts, answer the following question: what do these borders represent? The ideas of borders, boundaries and border crossings are increasingly employed in a metaphorical sense that does not always refer to the physical border. These borders are progressively used to represent social and cultural boundaries. A cultural border indicates that a more powerful side constructs it’s own cultural knowledge and has added political power and privileges. When understanding the concept of borders, it is important to understand that borders are being referred to in a literal sense and in a figurative sense. The term literal can be referred to as taking words in their most basic sense without adding exaggeration or metaphorical meaning. The term figurative can be described to as departing from the literal use of words and adding metaphorical meaning. Figurative notions of borders within race have been a primary concern for the novels Follow the Rabbit Proof Fence by Doris Pilkington and Remembering Babylon by David Malouf. This essay will discuss and analyze t he concept of figurative borders and what these borders represent. Lastly, this essay will explore in detail the concept of figurative borders within the two novels. Follow the Rabbit Proof Fence and Remembering Babylon have numerous

Australian Competition Consumer Legislation -Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Australian Competition Consumer Legislation? Answer: Introducation A contract is an agreement enforceable by law. An agreement is established between two parties known as an offeror and an offeree. When an offeror makes and offer to an offeree and the same is accepted by the offeree then an agreement is formed between two. For an agreement to be in category of a contract it is necessary that apart for the offer and its acceptance there must be intention of parties to contract, consideration and capacity of parties.(Stone, 2005) An offer is an intent made by an offeror to an offeree to perform or not to perform certain tasks. It is the intention of the offeror which he communicates to an offeree and is held in Australian Woollen MillsPty. Ltd.v. TheCommonwealth[1954]. An offer is concluded when it is communicated to the person for whom the same is meant. An offer can be in written or an oral form. Offer may be for a specific person or for the world at large. The case law of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892) is based on concept of general and specific offers.. Now, an offer can be revoked by the offeror either expressly or by lapse of time. When the offeror gave a specific time duration within which the offeree must accept the offer and if the offeree does not accept the offer within such time frame then there is revocation of offer on the basis of lapse of time and is held in Goldsbrough, Mort Co Ltd v Quinn[1910]. Invitation to treat An invitation to treat is a concept in contract law which is different from an offer. when the intended person wish to receive proposals from the public at large or specific persons and thus in order to do so he makes advertisements, holds auctions, tenders, display of goods etc and thus receives proposals (offer), then the intended person is an inviter and the act is an act of invitation to treat and is held in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953]. The proposal are received from the offeror and the inviter must act like an offeree who if accepts the offers so received results in a binding relationship amid the parties. In the leading case of Harris v Nickerson(1873), it was held by the court that an advertisement is not an offer, rather, the same is construed as an invitation to treat and any person who is interested in the advertisement must make an offer to the advertiser. Acceptance An acceptance is the second most important ingredient in contract law. An acceptance is the confirmation to the terms of the offer by the offeree and is held in Airways Corp of New Zealand v GeyserlandAirways Ltd [1996]. An acceptance is the mirror image of the offer. If the acceptance is made with different terms that are part of an offer then the acceptance is not the mirror image of the offer and such an acceptance is not valid and is called counter offer and is held in Pars TechnologyLimitedv City Link Transport HoldingsLimited (1999). A counter offer revokes the original offer and must be regarded as new offer in law which is made by the offeree (new offeror) to the old offeror. The old offeror now becomes the new offeree and if he accepts the new offer then there is a bonding contract amid the parties. But, mere request or communication of informations cannot be regarded as an acceptance in law and is held in Stevenson, Jacques and Co v McLean (1880). An acceptance is considered to be complete in law provided the offeror is aware of the same and is held in Latec Finance Pty Ltd v Knight[1969]. When an acceptance is made with the help of instant mode of communication, that is, with the help of telephone, fax, etc, then the communication of acceptance takes place when it comes in the awareness of the offeror. The same rule applies when an acceptance is made with the help of email. Till the time the email is not read by the offeror, the acceptance is not complete unless and until there is a considerable lapse of time has passed and is held in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation[1955]. But, the rule is not applicable when the acceptance is with the help of post and it was decided that the acceptance is considered to be over on the part of the offeree as soon as the letter is put into transit. There is no need that the same must come within the awareness of the offeror and is held in Adam v Lindsell[1818]. (HILL , 2001) An acceptance must be revoked with a faster mode of communication so that the acceptance is revoked before it is completed as against the offeree, that is, before it comes within the knowledge of the offeror. Lianne come through an advertisement of Mary wherein she is offering professional services for catering a party. Lianne is interested in throwing a party so she made an email to Mary on 10th June. Since an advertisement is posted on the website by Mary so it is an invitation as per Harris v Nickersonand she must receive offers from public. Lianne sent an email and submitted that she is interested in taking the services of Mary and thus requires the price information. Mary replied with service information which is liked by Lianne and she further provided with her party details. Then again an email is exchanged wherein Mary quoted that for the services she would like to charge $ 10,000. However, no quote in law is considered to be an offer and thus the quotation of Mary is also not an offer. Against the quotation that is submitted by Mary to Lianne, Lianne decided to make an offer to Mary and submitted that she would like to take the services of Mary at the reduced price of $ 9,500. Now, this is the first time that against the invitation of Mary, it was Lianne who made an offer of $ 9,500. It is now upon Mary to either accept the offer or reject the same. It is found that Mary decided to accept the offer of Lianne at $ 9,500 but when she made the acceptance she submitted that she requires 10% of the non-refundable deposit and that she will accept the offer only when the same is received within seven days. Now, the acceptance of Mary is not as per the rule of acceptances and her acceptance was not the mirror image of the offer of Lianne. She made variations and thus this variation in the acceptance has made the acceptance into counter offer. So, the counter offer of Mary cancels the offer of Lianne. The only offer that is now valid is the counter offer of Mary at a price of $ 9,500 with 10% non-refundable deposit within seven days. No response is received from Lianne for ten days. Thus, the counter offer (new offer) of Mary is already revoked as per Butler Machine ToolCo Ltdv Ex-Cell-O CorpLtd [1977]. Thus, when on 20th June, Lianne sent an email of her acceptance, such acceptance has no validity in law. There is no obligation on Mary to abide by such acceptance. But, against the mail of Lianne on 20th June, Mary against submitted that she will now gave the service for $ 10,000. Now, this statement is a new offer which is now made by Mary to Lianne. This new offer of Mary was approved by Lianne by sending an email which was not read by Mary for next five hours, also, within next half an hour Lianne also send an email of revocation which is also read by Mary after five hours. Now, a presumption is drawn here and it is assumed that the revocation email is read by Mary prior to the acceptance email. So, the acceptance was revoked by Lianne before it is complete a against Mary. So, there is no acceptance by Lianne to the offer of Mary and thus there is no contract. Based on the assumption made, it is submitted that since the revocation email is read by Mary prior to the acceptance email, thus, there is no concluding contract amid the parties. The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) is the enactments which aims at safeguarding the interest of the consumers and imposes strict guarantees that must be cater by the manufacturers and suppliers of the goods and services. Now, the most important question is who the consumer is? The ACL has submitted in its section 3 that any person who is purchasing the goods worth up to $ 40,000 is a consumer. However, if the worth of the goods exceeds $ 40,000 still the person is considered to be a consumer provided the goods so purchase is for personal consumption or domestic use. (Australia, 2011) Once a person is regarded as a consumer as per section 3 of ACL then the manufacturer, supplier, imported is imposed with few obligations that must be comply with by them in each and every situation. Firstly, as per section 18 of ACL, no act must be carried out which deceive or mislead the consumer; secondly, no representation must be made which is misleading or false in nature, as per section 29 of ACL; thirdly, if the goods are not of acceptable quality then there is violation of section 54 of ACL and is held in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1935); fourthly, if the specific usage of the good is communicated to the supplier then the goods so supplied must match the goods so supplied (Section 55) (David Jones v Willis (1934); fifthly, if the goods are sold as per description, then the good so supplied must match the description (section 56 of ACL) (Beale v Taylor (1967). Application of law As per the facts of the case, it is assumed that there is a valid contract that is made out between Lianne and Mary for a contractual amount of $ 9,500. Now, as per section 3, Lianne is a consumer because the services supplied by Mary are not more than $ 40,000. So, the guarantees that are established under ACL is applicable upon Mary to be furnished in order to avoid liabilities. It is found that most of the requirements that is desired by Lianne was not met by Mary. Thus, there is breach of several consumer guarantees, that is: When the services are supplied by Mary to Lianne, then, Lianne specifically told to Mary that she is interested in a party which must be based on Malaysian theme. She also specified that the music must be Zapin and Joget with ethinic foods and drinks of high quality. She also required a dancing room on board. But, it is submitted that these requirements of Lianne was not met by Mary. This is because the food so supplied was not Malaysians, rather, Russian food was provided. The dancing room was not provided and the boat was not adequate to fit in the entire guest. Thus, the services that are sought by Lianne were already described by her but the services that are provided do not match the purpose for which the services are required. Thus, there is clear breach of section 55 of ACL. Also, when the advertisement laws posted on the website by Mary then she declared that they are professional and stylish, they are represented that they are professional for holding boat parties. However, these representations were found to be false and the boat that was provided was congested and could not hold all the guests. Also, they were not professionals in their conduct. Thus, there was clear violation of section 18 and cession 29 of ACL. Advertisements published by businesses appear in various media such as television, radio, print, or internet. In Australia, as elsewhere, advertisements are designed to have a certain impact or effect on those who see, read or hear them. The business advertiser needs to be careful about statements made in its advertisements given that they are subject to legal rules developed by the courts as well as by parliament. The statement made above seems to be justified in nature. considering the number of legal framework that are developed in Australia, it is justified in submitted that the business advertiser needs to be careful about statements made in its advertisements given that they are subject to legal rules developed by the courts as well as by parliament. (Horvath et al, 2009) In order to authenticate the statements made above it is now important to lay down some of the legislations that are enacted by the government of Australia which are binding upon the advertisers and must be followed in order to avoid consequences. Firstly, any misleading or deceptive advertisement is not permitted as per section 18 of ACL. Bait advertisements are violation of section 18. Also, those advertisements which cannot be understood, read or interpret by the public are bait in nature. if the advertisement does not disclose the true information or provides inadequate or no information then it is nothing but a misleading action on the part of the advertiser; secondly, the advertisements that misleads or make false information in the advertisements is misleading and is considered to be violation of section 29 of the law. If any claim is made regarding the origin or the good or quality or style or false testimonial or false claim that repair services will be provided or false characteristics, sponsorship, accessories or a false claim that the goods are novel or false declaration of rebates, prizes etc are volition of section 29 of ACL; thirdly, when the advertiser on the basis of his stronger position take undue advantage to itself at the cost of the relying party then it is an act of unconsiousable conduct and is prohibited under section 20 of the ACL; fifthly, AANA Code of Ethics is established which lay downs guidelines which are applicable upon the marketing and advertising of the products which must be cater by the advertiser; sixthly, many codes and enactments are made which imposes strict obligations of the advertisers which includes, Food and Beverage Industry, ABAC Responsible Alcohol Marketing Code, Australia Food and Grocery Council Responsible Childrens Marketing Initiative of the Australian; Weight Management Industry Code of Practice 2015, Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2015. Thus, it is submitted that the role of the advertiser is very crucial and there are several representations and informations that are provided by the advertiser which are relied upon the consumer. Thus, it is the paramount duty of the advertiser to provide such information and indulge in such actions which ado not misguide or harm the consumer in any manner whatsoever. Reference List Australia (2011) Australian Competition and Consumer Legislation 2011, CCH Australia Limited. HILL, S (2001) Email contracts When is the contract formed?, JlLawInfoSci 4. Horvath et al et al, (2009) Consumer Protection Law Developments, American Bar Association. Stone R (2005) The Modern Law of Contract, The Modern Law of Contract. Adam v Lindsell[1818]. Airways Corp of New Zealand v GeyserlandAirways Ltd [1996]. Australian Woollen MillsPty. Ltd.v. TheCommonwealth[1954]. Beale v Taylor (1967). Butler Machine ToolCo Ltdv Ex-Cell-O CorpLtd [1977]. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892). David Jones v Willis (1934). Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation[1955]. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1935). Goldsbrough, Mort Co Ltd v Quinn[1910]. Harris v Nickerson(1873). Latec Finance Pty Ltd v Knight[1969]. Pars TechnologyLimitedv City Link Transport HoldingsLimited (1999). Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953]. Stevenson, Jacques and Co v McLean (1880).