Analysis of The Bet by Anton Chekhov

The Bet is a short story that explores a moral theme regarding the value of human life. However, the story is constructed with an important ironic twist that brings the reader back to the original context of the bet (if the lawyer could endure solitary confinement for fifteen years), and presents an unexpected result. One can ultimately see that Anton Chekhov presents the readers with two different paths in the story. One of them is the banker, who refuses to face his own morality and the other is the lawyer (prisoner) who actually faces his own morality, but falls into despair because he is so disconnected from the outside world, even after gaining so much knowledge. These two characters may thrive on change, but they both alter their own human values in great ways.The banker, a spoiled and pampered man, is very nervous and gets himself carried away by excitement at the time he makes a bet with the lawyer. This is shown when he says, Fifteen! DoneGentlemen, I stake two millions. Chekhov shows the reader that this not the impulsiveness of youth since he describes it as excitability, which he could not get over even in advancing years. Later in the story, Chekhov paints the portrait of a cowardly man who lacks the courage to endure reality. One day before the lawyer is to be granted his freedom, the banker becomes irritated and anxious, The only escape from bankruptcy and disgraceis that the man should die. At this point, the reader can trace the bankers path from boastfully making a foolish bet to being the one to give up all that he had staked, and conclude that his self-values have reached their all time low.On the other hand, the lawyer, an older and wiser man, shows his dynamic characteristics as he changes dramatically in the course of the 15 year bet. The lawyers character completely transforms from being an arrogant, young man, in to a feeble, cynical, yet more intelligent man.

Business Economics Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Business Economics Paper - Essay Example It was founded on July 1, 1981 by Sim Wong Hoo. Sim Wong Hoo started off initially as a small computer repair shop, developing memory boards. Later, customized PCs were developed. The success spurred Sim Wong Hoo on and his inquisitive nature asserted itself. He found himself asking questions related to technology and the world found itself a market leader for multi media products. After decades of innovation, Creative Technology Limited is considered to be a market leader in the market for entertainment, IT and multimedia products. It offers a wide range of differentiated products including MP 3 players, pocket cameras, webcams, X-Fi audio sound cards, earphones, headphones, headsets, keyboards and multimedia speakers. According to Creative Companies (2009), Creative Technology was initially located only in Singapore. At present it has headquarters in Singapore, subsidiary in USA and branches in Europe and Asia. The advent of technology has allowed the company to operate as a virtual online store as well. Creative Technology Limited believes in creating value for all of its customers; those who are technical savvy and for those who are not. The aim is to provide satisfaction to any one who enjoys entertainment. The core values of customization and innovation are embedded in their culture and reflected in their user-friendly and well designed products with multiple features. Hence, Creative, which is their brand name, is reflected in each of their products. Determinants of Demand Demand is the desire and willingness to purchase a product. It is affected by a number of factors. According to Bamford et al. (2002), the shifts in the demand curve are caused by the financial ability to pay, attitudes towards the products, the price, availability and attractiveness of substitute products, marketing,

LAW2040 PROPERTY LAW 2B Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

LAW2040 PROPERTY LAW 2B - Essay Example This arrangement went on for seven years – James making the mortgage repayments, while Cara did domestic chores. Cara did not make any mortgage payments on this flat, nor did she have a child at home to care for. Because the proceeds from the flat were used to buy the pig farm, it is therefore pertinent to analyze whose property was the flat in the first instance. Therefore, the real question here is whether Cara’s domestic contribution towards the household factors into who would be entitled to lay claim to the original flat? This question can be answered by examining Burns v. Burns [1984] Ch 317. In Burns, the plaintiff, Valerie Burns, lived with the defendant for 19 years, without the benefit of marriage. Valerie did not contribute financially towards the purchase price of the home or the mortgage installments, and acted as a homemaker. She also paid some household bills and paid for expenses related to redecorating. However, the Burns court stated that, absence any proof that Valerie made financial contributions to the purchase price or the mortgage installments, she did not have the right to beneficial entitlement to the home. In this case, Cara did contribute to purchase price, then made no other financial contributions for the next seven years. Therefore, the property would be Cara’s to the extent that she financially contributed to it, and no more, and the rest would be considered to be James’. It is unclear how much Cara put towards the property when the property was purchased, and for how much the flat was sold, but any money that was realized from the sale of this property would belong mostly to James, which means that James put most of the money towards the financing of the pig farm, even though the pig farm was titled only in Cara’s name. That said, other cases indicate that Cara would be entitled to a share of the original flat, beyond what she contributed financially, so the analysis will also take this into acc ount. The leading case which would answer this question would be Oxley v. Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546. In this case, two unmarried parties purchased a house, and the property was transferred into the name of the male partner, who was the defendant. In this case, as in the case at bar, both parties directly contributed to the purchase price of the house. Because the non-owner of this home did directly contribute directly towards the purchase price, the non-owner was entitled to a beneficial share of the home. Therefore, the principle established by Lloyds Bank plc v. Rosset [1990] UKHL 14 would not be used. The principle in Rosset, which echoes the principle in Burns, is that conduct alone would not entitle an individual to a beneficial interest in property. Nothing less than direct monetary contribution would suffice. That said, Abbott v. Abbott [2007] UKPC 53 states that a party’s course of conduct would be examined in relation to the property, in order to determine who had what share of the home. However, Holbech states that the Abbott court would only look at indirect contributions towards the purchase price, such as payments into a joint account out of which the mortgage was paid, or works to improve the property. Drake v. Whipp [1986] Ch 638 is another case which addresses these concerns.