Leadership In Julius Ceasar Essay -- William Shakespeare

In Shakespeare’s tragedy Julius Caesar, the use of diverse leaders plays an important role in the plot, showing vividly how strong personalities conflict. This is the case with Brutus and Cassius, the two leaders among the several conspirators. The story of Julius Caesar is set in ancient Rome during a time when Julius Caesar is to become king. This, however, angers Cassius, a nobleman, and he plots with Brutus and others to kill him before he becomes king. They do just that, justifying their actions by saying Caesar was too ambitious and would have gone insane with power. This backfires with the Roman citizens after an emotional speech by Mark Antony, Caesar’s right hand man. This forces the conspirators to flee Rome and go to war with Antony and eventually take their own lives. Because of their great leadership qualities, Brutus and Cassius take the leader roles among the conspirators. Nevertheless, they at times do argue over the course of action. Though Brutus and C assius are both similar in that they are great leaders, their differences in character are instrumental in determining the conclusion of the play.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Despite their differences, Brutus and Cassius have similar traits that give rise to great leaders. Both Brutus and Cassius are noble, intelligent men. They usually have good intentions and understand the situation they are in. This is why they both agree to go along with the conspiracy to kill Caesar. The two also like to think out and plan their actions. They do this two significant times in the play. When the two plan Caesar’s assassination and during the planning of the final move for Brutus and Cassius’ army. When the assassination is developing, Cassius thinks to kill Antony as well as Caesar saying, â€Å"Mark Antony, so well beloved of Caesar, Should outlive Caesar. We shall find of him A shrewd contriver; and you know his means, If he improve them, may well stretch so far As to annoy us all. Which to prevent, Let Antony and Caesar fall together† (2.1.157-162). Brutus, however, responds with his own reasoning, â€Å"Our course will see n too bloody, Caius Cassius, To cut the head off and then hack at the limbs, Like wrath in death and envy afterwards; For Antony is but a limb of Caesar† (2.1.163-166). They two are also self reliant and self-dependent. They can think and act for themselves as they should any great man says Cassius to Brutus, â€Å"Me... ...derable differences in trust and loyalty are the ultimate factors that influence the conclusion of the play. Both of these characters have great qualities such as intelligence, self-dependence, and reasoning ability that make them excellent leaders. It, however, is their differences that govern the end result of the conspiracy. The single most outstanding decision of the play was when the conspirators resolved not to kill Antony along with Caesar. Brutus’ overwhelming trust of Antony led him to believe Antony was not going to be a problem. There are many implications of leadership as seen in Julius Caesar. Those who tend to exhibit strong leadership characteristics will have much more impact on those who tend to stand back and fall into the crowd, even if the decisions being made are illogical. When two strong leaders interact, there usually is a disagreement on the course of action, which can be harmful for the group. The strong characters of Brutus and Cassius, and the w eaker conspirators, prove both these conclusions. Works Cited Shakespeare, William. "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar." Houghton Mifflin Company. The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. Boston, 1994.

Doctrine of adequacy and sufficiency Essay

This essay critically explores the doctrines of consideration and sufficiency within the context of contract law, with references to the matter of Thomas v Thomas from 1842. In assigning significance to these matters, it is noted that Sir John Patteson, a judge in 1830 who was appointed to the Court of King’s Bench, (later the Privy Council) was knighted shortly after making the landmark decision regarding the doctrine of consideration in the case of Thomas. The ratio decidendi in Thomas, was ‘[c]onsideration must be of value and involve benefit or detriment’ postulating further that ‘although consideration must be sufficient, it need not be adequate. ’ CONSIDERATION Eleanor Thomas sued the executors of her husband’s estate where the court ruled the agreement entered into, was neither nominal nor a voluntary gift, but sufficient in consideration. Consideration is the intention to create legal relations through a bargaining process affording a mutual exchange of a promise for a promise. In Beaton v McDivitt, it is evident that if a transfer was a gift, the essential component of bargaining would be absent. Consideration must be quid pro quo and result in a transfer between the promisor and the promisee, and result in the creation of a relationship of cause and effect. Only the parties involved can enforce the agreement. Consideration may also be a promise to refrain from doing something as Lush J in Currie v Misa states, ‘a valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other. ’ Consideration can involve the forbearing to sue even if the case is unfounded. Past consideration may be valid where it was preceded by a request, however services that would not have been performed but for the implied promise of payment amounts to good consideration. WHEN CONSIDERATION IS NOT CONSIDERATION Consideration may be invalid as in Jones v Padavatton where under the doctrine of presumption, arrangements between family are not binding. Salmon LJ in Jones, in the dissenting obiter dictum, determined that the original agreement created an intention to create legal relations due to the financial consequences of the promise involved, however held there was no binding contract suggesting there was insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption against domestic arrangements. Consideration must be furnished at the time of agreement. Consideration is not valid where a promise to make payment has occurred after the act has been performed. Bargains and conditional gifts for a person who performs an act is not good consideration, nor is a promise to perform an existing duty, or an existing public duty, except where performance goes beyond required expectations. Illegality in consideration is not enforceable giving rise to the expression ‘ex dolo malo non oritur actio’ meaning ‘[n]o court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. ’ Illusory consideration, where one party’s obligations are amorphous, is not binding. Limitations and exceptions can apply to consideration however, where additional risks are undertaken. DOCTRINE OF SUFFICIENCY As in Thomas, common law substantially rests on the precept that consideration must be of value to be sufficient, even if it is nominal, without any quantitative economic postulation. Some may suggest such fiscally nominal or token consideration while sufficient, is commercially inadequate in the eyes of a reasonable person, and is itself, illusory. It may be suggested the court has extended itself to invent consideration, where equity may uphold promises not supported by good consideration, through the provision of promissory estoppel. It is incumbent on the parties only to determine the subjective and adequate worth of a promise. Patteson J articulates in Thomas, ‘although consideration must be sufficient, it need not be adequate. ’ CONCLUSION Blackburn J statement of objective interpretation suggests the objective test must always apply in assessing how a reasonable person would view the situation. It can be concluded that consideration is a matter of essential promissory exchange, while adequacy and value, are the fiscal or functionary exclusive domain of the parties involved. Word count 691

Commonly Confused Words Accidental and Incidental

The adjectives accidental and incidental sound similar but have different meanings. Definitions The adjective accidental means unintentional or happening by chance. The adjective incidental means secondary or nonessential. It often refers to something that occurs in connection with a more important activity or event. Examples According to the National Safety Council, there were more than 600 accidental shooting deaths in the United States last year.We can reduce the risk of setting off  accidental  nuclear war by retiring nuclear cruise missiles and instead rely on conventional weapons.(Dianne Feinstein and Ellen O. Tauscher, A Nuclear Weapon That America Doesnt Need. The New York Times, June 17, 2016)  Ã‚  Traditionally, vocabulary learning was often left to look after itself and received  only incidental  attention in many textbooks and language programs.(J.C. Richards and W.A. Renandya, Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, 2002)  We had to save everything we could against the worst possibilities. As for incidentals, they were going to be very incidental indeed. Scratch those too.(Wallace Stegner, Crossing to Safety, 1987)   Usage Notes What is accidental happens by chance: We didnt plan our meeting at the restaurant; it was accidental.What is incidental occurs as a minor consequence of something more important: The main advantage of a small car is that it is inexpensive; an incidental advantage is that it is easier to park than a larger car.(Rod Evans,  The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language, 2009) Idiom Alert The expression accidentally on purpose means as if by accident but actually by intention. If you do something accidentally on purpose, youre only pretending that it occurred by chance. The expression accidentally on purpose is an example of an oxymoron.ExampleGently I picked up the fabric scrap. I wonder what it was doing behind the mantel. Maybe her mother had propped it up there to display, and then it accidentally fell behind it and was forgotten.Or maybe, Jack added, her mother  accidentally on purpose  lost it.I finally looked at him. What do you mean?When I was a little boy, I had a favorite book that I made my mother read to me at bedtime at least sixteen times each night. It had lots of different characters, so when she read it, she had to make up all those voices. It must have been exhausting for her. He looked down at the sampler for a moment, smiling to himself. Anyway, one day the book just vanished. She helped me look and look for that book, but we never did find it. It was only a couple of years ago that she finally confessed to me that she hid it in the bottom of her cedar chest, where I would never find it  because she thought she might go mad if she ever had to read it again.(Karen White,  The House on Tradd Street. New American Library, 2008) Practice (a) When you travel on business, _____ expenses are items such as local transportation, telephone calls, tips, and laundry.(b) _____ fires are more likely to start in the kitchen than in any other room in the house. Answers (a) When you travel on business,  incidental  expenses are items such as local transportation, telephone calls, tips, and laundry.(b)  Accidental  fires are more likely to start in the kitchen than in any other room in the house.