Toyota recall is not safe Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Toyota recall is not safe - Essay Example One of these companies is Toyota Motor Corporation, commonly known as Toyota. This is a multinational corporation with its headquarters in Japan. Toyota has factories in most parts of the world which makes it one of the world’s largest automaker (Toyota, 2010). The cars manufactured by Toyota were considered the best until the series of accidents that were caused by the cars’ design. Some say that the issue was not very serious and it was unnecessarily amplified by its competitors over the media. Very recently, several vehicles faced the problem of the accelerator pedal getting stuck which caused unintended acceleration and hence many accidents. As a corrective measure, Toyota has decided to recall its sold cars and fix them (Reed, P., 2010). According to a source, by January 28, 2010, Toyota had announced recalls of about 5.2 million cars for the pedal entrapment/floor mat problem, and an additional 2.3 million cars for the accelerator pedal problem. Out of these, almost 1.7 million cars have both these problems (Toyota Press Release, 2010). In addition to this, it cut down on its production to a great extent as well. Other companies that have faced the same problems include Honda, Ford, etc. However, the problem faced by these org anizations did not affect their image and financial condition at the same scale as Toyota. Now when we talk about this incident and Toyota’s reaction of recalling the cars that were potentially damaged, people often take two different sides. Some say that the Toyota recall was a good idea while some disagree. It is very important that all aspects of this issue are discussed so that we can understand the strategy better from all angles. Therefore, in this paper, we will discuss both sides of the argument in the coming paragraphs, firstly discussing the arguments for the Toyota recall. The Toyota recall is believed to be the best thing for everyone. We noted in the

Land Law - Dimensions of land Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Land Law - Dimensions of land - Essay Example The corporeal and noncorporeal components are known as realty to distinguish it from personalty. The latter being personal or movable property (Gray & Gray 2007). Thus in the eyes of law land is a multidimensional asset as discussed below. The first two dimensions of land: it is a two dimensional piece of earth with defining contours, features and limits of jurisdiction. Which is recognised by the registrars, conveyancers, surveyors and ramblers. However this definition too does not takes into account the low water mark area in the coastline. The three mile territorial area including water constitute land. However , even outside this three mile limit the channel tunnel subsoil upto the middle of English channel is called land (Channel tunnel act 1987). Thus land includes land covered with water as well (Gray & Gray 2007). 4-5The third dimension of land: A Latin maxim says that the one who owns land owns the heaven above it and the earth deep down to the centre. It certainly indicated three-dimensional nature of land but lacks practical wisdom. The indefinite extension of territory of land would mean an airplane passing over it causes trespass. Still some three-dimensional characteristics is to be accepted for land in statutory definition. A land can be held above surface and may be divided horizontally. Thus different owners can hold the titles of the land each holding a stratum of cubic surface above or below the surface layer of the earth (Gray & Gray 2007). The components of these three dimensions are (Wilkie 2006; Gray & Gray 2007; Dixon 2005): The word 'hereditament' in law means nature of right involved in ownership of land. land law is all about-not just the land (the soil, the grass, the trees, the buildings), but the rights that people may have in land. Thus, land is to be reclassified as including corporeal and incorporeal hereditaments. Ownership of land may equally include ownership of a house and ownership of a right of way over someone else's house (an incorporeal hereditament). The land law may be viewed from corporeal and incorporeal rights or by distinction between fixtures and chattels. The fee simple owner's right of air space: The owner's rights extend to such a height as is reasonably necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land. In Baron Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews and General Ltd [1978] QB 479, Griffith J stated that it was necessary to balance the rights of an owner to enjoy the land against the rights of the general public to take advantage of all that 'science now offers in the use of airspace'. Where there is an interference with the legitimate rights of the fee simple