Books on the topic 'PICO question'

Chapter 11 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) deals with the plurality of obligors and obligees. It addresses those legal issues arising from the fact that performance of a contractual obligation is owed by more than one obligor and/or owed to more than one obligee. In principle, the chapter does not deal with questions of plurality of parties to a contract as such. One example is the question of whether the right of termination for fundamental non-performance (Art 7.3.1) may be exercised by just one out of several buyers, and the consequences this might entail. However, the question of whether one of the obligors or obligees may exercise a right of avoidance according to Section 3.2 of the PICC, and what the consequences of such avoidance might be, is discussed.

According to many interpreters, Socrates in the Euthyphro thinks that an answer to ‘what is the holy?’ should pick out some feature that is prior to being holy. While this is a powerful way to think of answers to the ‘what is it?’ question, one that Aristotle develops, I argue that the Euthyphro provides an important alternative to this Aristotelian account. Instead, an answer to ‘what is the holy?’ should pick out precisely being holy, not some feature prior to it. I begin by showing how this interpretation allows for a straightforward reading of a key argument: Socrates’ refutation of Euthyphro’s proposal that the holy is the god-loved. Then I address considerations that seem to favour the Aristotelian account. I end by explaining how answers to ‘what is f-ness?’ questions are informative on this account, even though they do not identify anything other than f-ness.

This chapter outlines a certain attitude to model theory called ‘modelism’. The modelist idea is that structure-talk, as used informally by mathematicians, is to be understood in terms of isomorphism, in the model theorist's sense. For example, modelists will want to explicate talk of ‘the natural numbers' in terms of a particular isomorphism type. As such, modelists face an important doxological question: ‘How can we pick out particular isomorphism types?’ This chapter examines various versions of this question, and in particular what it means to say that it is a doxological question. We also distinguish between objectual and conceptual versions of this question, and show how they relate to Shapiro’s and Hellman’s different versions of structuralism.

This commentary focuses on Article 5.3.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the types of condition covered by Section 5.3 of the PICC. Art 5.3.1 identifies the two types of condition that are recognized in the PICC: suspensive condition and resolutive condition. Whether a condition is suspensive or resolutive is a question of interpretation of the contractual intention of the parties. A contract or a contractual obligation may be made conditional upon the occurrence of a future uncertain event, so that the contract or contractual obligation only takes effect if the event occurs (suspensive condition) or comes to an end if the event occurs (resolutive condition). This commentary discusses the scope of Section 5.3, the distinction between ‘suspensive’ and ‘resolutive’ conditions, conditions whose fulfilment is entirely dependent on the will of the obligor, time limit stated by the condition, and illegal conditions.

Section 3.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) deals with illegality. This is an innovation of the third edition of the PICC. Previous editions expressly excluded immorality and illegality. The rationale for the exclusion was the complexity of questions of public policy and the diversity of national laws. When UNIDROIT inquired among its experts which topics should be included in a new edition, illegality emerged as one of the most widely supported topics. The conceptual possibility of a private instrument governing the application of mandatory rules was apparently not considered. Yet, the issue might reveal an essential limit to the relevance of the provisions of Section 3.3.

Section 7.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) deals with the aggrieved party's right to terminate the contract if the other party does not perform. However, the PICC also severely restrict the scope of termination as a remedy. The crucial question is not whether there is a right to terminate, but rather when it will be available to the aggrieved party. Art 7.3.1(1) accepts the doctrine of fundamental breach as the basic rule for the availability of termination. For cases of delay, Art 7.3.1(3) introduces the Nachfrist mechanism. The basic structure of the system of remedies in Section 7.3 bears a strong resemblance to both the Commission on European Contract Law, Principles of European Contract Law (1998), and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) regimes.

This commentary focuses on Article 3.2.8 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning third persons. Chapter 3 of the PICC generally deals with the situation where one party to the contract uses an improper method to obtain consent. However, it is quite conceivable that a third person who is nor a party to the contract could influence its conclusion in an improper manner. The question then arises whether avoidance is still possible. The solution of Art 3.2.8 is essentially to allow the party whose consent has been obtained in an improper manner to avoid the contract if the defect can be attributed to the other party to the contract. Art 3.2.8 treats fraud, threat, or gross disparity as equally serious grounds for invalidity. This commentary discusses the general purpose and application of Art 3.2.8 and considers other three-party situations where the victim of a threat by a third party could avoid the contract.

This commentary focuses on Article 5.1.5 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the determination of the kind of duty involved. Art 5.1.5 provides criteria for determining the nature of contractual obligations. The question of whether an obligation involves a duty to achieve a specific result or a duty of best efforts is a result of the interpretation of the contract. Thus, Art 5.1.5 supplements the rules on contractual interpretation in Chapter 4 of the PICC. In determining the extent to which a party's obligation involves a duty of best efforts in the performance of an activity or a duty to achieve a specific result, regard shall be had to the way in which the obligation is expressed in the contract; the contractual price and other terms of the contract; the degree of risk normally involved in achieving the expected result; and the ability of the other party to influence the performance of the obligation.

This article discusses what kind of thing a philosophical methodology (good or not) is or would be, and what kind of questions would count as methodological. The primary focus is on a “higher-order” reading, on which admissible answers are the epistemological methods that distinguish philosophy from the natural sciences and the humanities, or the pursuit of a description of reality at the most fundamental level. The article uses the term “Philosophical Methodology” to pick out questions of the higher order, and “philosophical methodology” for questions of the lower order. To provide a robust data pool, it takes all occurrences of the word “methodological” in entries of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophynford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and considers what plausible theories of Philosophical Methodology can be fitted into that range of usage. It also discusses seven hypotheses that account for the nature of Philosophical Methodology: Eliminativism, Working-Hypothesism, Epistemologism, Theory Selectionism, Necessary Preconditionalism, Hierarchicalism, and Eliminatedivism.

Reference, the ability to refer to and pick out entities, is essential to human language and thought/cognition. The chapters in this volume attempt to provide a state of the art overview of this ability. The book is divided into two sections. The chapters in Part I, Foundations, are concerned with basic questions related to different types of referring expression and their interpretation. They address questions about the role of the speaker (including speaker intentions) and of the addressee, as well as the contribution of (the semantics of) the linguistic forms themselves, in establishing reference. They are also concerned with the nature of such concepts as definite and indefinite reference and specificity and the conditions under which reference may fail. The chapters in Part II, Implications and Applications, address questions about the acquisition of reference by children, and the processing of reference in the brain (neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics) as well as by machines, including robots (computational linguistics).

Technological innovations have increased the independence, self-governance, and freedom of millions of people around the world. The link between new technologies and increased autonomy is by no means a modern phenomenon. Pick any point in time at which a substantial technological transformation has occurred, and it is likely that a significant part of the process can be described as an upsurge of autonomy. The focus of this chapter is on three questions: (i) How should autonomy be defined? (ii) Is autonomy valuable for its own sake or as a means to an end? (ii) How should autonomy be measured? By answering these questions it becomes clear how the Autonomy Principle should be applied to real-world cases in which people’s independence, self-governance, or freedom is affected.

Section 11.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) deals with the plurality of obligees in a contractual setting. Where an obligor is bound towards a plurality of obligees, various issues arise. The main questions concern the relationship between the obligees and the obligor, and the relationship between the obligees. Section 11.2 provides for three types of plurality of obligees: separate claims, joint and several claims, and joint claims. This Section appears to be only of limited assistance. Substantial rules are provided only for one type of plurality which is, arguably, rare in practice, namely joint and several claims.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the world. Almost everyone’s life is in some way or other affected by cancer. Yet, when faced with a cancer diagnosis, many of us will confront questions we had never before considered: Is cancer one disease, or many? If many, how many exactly? How is cancer classified? What does it mean, exactly, to say that cancer is “genetic,” or “familial”? What exactly are the causes of cancer, and how do scientists come to know about them? When do we have good reason to believe that this or that is a risk factor for cancer? These questions are (in part) empirical ones; however, they are also (in part) philosophical. That is, they are questions about what and how we come to know. They are about how we define and classify disease, what counts as a “natural” classification, what it means to have good evidence, and how we pick out causes as more or less significant. This book takes a close look at these philosophical questions, by examining the conceptual and methodological challenges that arise in cancer research, in disciplines as diverse as cell and molecular biology, epidemiology, clinical medicine, and evolutionary biology.

Section 11.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) deals with the plurality of obligors in a contractual setting. Questions of a plurality of obligors arise in various circumstances. Several obligors may jointly bind themselves towards the obligee in a single promise or a single contract. If is only one obligor, a second party may bind itself towards the obligee to perform the same obligation. Several persons may be responsible for the same damage, or may have stood surety for the same debt. Section 11.1 describes two kinds of plurality, namely joint and several obligations, on the one hand, and separate obligations, on the other hand, with a default rule in favour of joint and several obligations. It also addresses rules for joint and several obligations, the relationship between obligors and obligee, and the internal relationship between the obligors.

This commentary analyses Article 11.1.12 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning defences available to a joint and several obligor against whom a contributory claim is made by the co-obligor who has performed the obligation. Whereas Art 11.1.4 deals with defences and rights of set-off that can be raised by an obligor against the obligee requiring performance, Art 11.1.12 answers the question of whether an obligor may raise defences or rights of set-off against a co-obligor which has performed more than its share and now seeks contribution under Art 11.1.10. This commentary discusses common defences that can be raised by all the obligors against the obligee, the rule on personal defences, personal defences of other obligors, and common and personal rights of set-off.

This commentary focuses on Article 6.1.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning partial performance of a contractual obligation. Art 6.1.3 addresses the question of whether the obligee has the right to reject partial performance or, conversely, whether the obligor has the right to discharge itself at least partly when the time of performance is due. This commentary discusses the content and scope of application of Article 6.1.3, definition of partial performance with regard to contractual obligations, right of the obligee to reject partial performance and obligation to accept partial performance, and legal consequences of acceptance or rejection of partial performance. It also considers the right of rejection in case of only partly possible performance, defective performance, and performance in excess. Finally, it looks at burden of proof as it relates to partial performance.

This commentary analyses Article 7.2.5 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the right of the aggrieved party to change the remedies sought. An aggrieved party has the freedom to choose between the available remedies (that is, termination, damages, or performance), provided that the requirements for these remedies are met. According to Art 7.2.5, an aggrieved party that has already demanded performance may in certain circumstances invoke another remedy (ius variandi). Where the decision of a court for performance of a non-monetary obligation cannot be enforced, the aggrieved party may invoke any other remedy. This commentary discusses the requirements that an aggrieved party must satisfy before it can change its remedy, the required time limit for a notice of termination, and the question of consistency of a demand for performance with other remedies.

This book provides a comparative analysis of domestic laws on contracts and sales in over sixty countries to deliver a global view of domestic and international sales law. The book reports on the real practice of sales law, taking into account present-day problems. Complex questions on the obligations under a sales contract, the ways in which these are established, as well as the remedies following the breach of obligations, are all discussed. The book encompasses all aspects of a sale of goods transaction and takes a wide view of sale by including general contract law. Since the first edition, new case law and legislation have emerged changing the content of the law on contracts and sales in some countries, and changes to the law of contract have been implemented in Argentina, France, Hungary, and Japan. Additionally, there have been 16 further country adoptions of the CISG. The UNIDROIT PICC was updated in 2016, and the ICC released new editions of its INCOTERMS© and force majeure and hardship clauses in 2020. International or multilateral developments that were in prospect (and some which were not) when writing the original edition have now either evolved or disappeared. This new edition provides a fresh comparative analysis of domestic laws and international developments, whilst considering the new case law applying and interpreting uniform projects like the CISG and the UNIDROIT PICC, and the influence this may have in the domestic law on contracts and sales.

This commentary focuses on Article 2.1.22 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning battle of forms. The ‘battle of forms’ arises where the parties reach agreement on the essential terms, usually through a reply to an offer which identifies itself as an acceptance, but both parties indicate, more or less automatically, that their respective standard terms should govern the contract. Since the standard terms often conflict with each other, the question arises whether a contract has actually been concluded at all and, if so, which of the inconsistent standard terms should apply in a given situation. In this regard, Art 2.1.22 follows the ‘knock-out’ doctrine. This commentary discusses battle of forms and the general rules on offer and acceptance, requirements for application of the knock-out rule, result of applying the knock-out rule, battle of conflicting choice of law clauses and jurisdiction clauses, and other possible solutions to the battle of forms and the case for the knock-out doctrine.

This commentary focuses on Article 6.1.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning performance of a contractual obligation at one time or in instalments. Whenever the obligor is given the right to perform its contractual obligations during a certain period of time, the question arises whether the obligor has to perform at one single moment during this period or whether it may choose to perform in lots. According to Art 6.1.2, the principle is performance at one time. The legitimate interest of the obligee not to be disturbed repeatedly for the same obligation seems to prevail over the interest of the obligor to offer its obligation in portions. This commentary discusses performance at one time as a rule, performance in instalments as an exception to the rule, effect of performance in instalments on counter-performance, and burden of proof relating to performance of a contractual obligation at one time or in instalments.

This commentary analyses Article 7.4.10 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning interest on damages. Art 7.4.10 is concerned with the award of interest for the non-performance of non-monetary obligations. It does not purport to identify the rate at which interest is payable: it simply identifies the time at which the right to recover interest accrues. Both the text of Art 7.4.10 and the Official Comment are silent on the issue of the rate of interest that is payable. However, it is explicitly confirmed in the Official Comment that Art 7.4.10 takes ‘no stand on the question of compound interest’. Furthermore, the Official Comment states that, ‘when making the final assessment of the harm, regard is to be had to the fact that damages are awarded as from the date of the harm, so as to avoid double compensation’. As for burden of proof, the aggrieved party must prove the non-performance of a non-monetary obligation as well as the time of the non-performance.

This commentary analyses Article 6.1.9 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning currency of payment. Art 6.1.9 addresses the problems that can arise if the required currency for payment (‘currency of account’) and the legal currency at the place of payment differ; that is, if a foreign money obligation features in the contract. The main questions that arise from such a scenario are whether there is a right of conversion — the right to effect or ask for payment in the legal currency of the place of payment — and, if so, which party is entitled to exercise that right and which is the applicable rate of conversion. This commentary discusses the obligor's right to pay in either contractual or legal currency, the obligee's right to request payment in either contractual or legal currency, application of exchange rate when payment is on time and when the obligor is in default, problems related to devaluation or revaluation, and burden of proof with respect to currency of payment.

The concept of dignity typically brings to mind an idea of moral status that supposedly belongs to all humans equally, and which serves as the basis of human rights. But this moralized meaning of dignity is historically very young. Until the mid-nineteenth century, dignity suggested an idea about merit: it connoted elevated social rank, of the sort that marked nobility or ecclesiastic preferment. What explains this radical change in meaning? And before this change, did anything like the moralized concept of dignity exist, that is, before it was named by the term “dignity”? If so, exactly how old is the moralized concept of dignity? In this volume, leading scholars across a range of disciplines attempt to answer these questions by clarifying the presently murky history of “dignity,” from classical Greek thought through the Middle Ages and Enlightenment to the present day. In the process, four platitudes about the history of human dignity are undermined: (1) the Roman notion of dignitas is not the ancient starting point of our modern moralized notion; (2) neither the medieval Christian doctrine of imago Dei nor the renaissance speech of Pico della Mirandola, Oration on the Dignity of Man, was a genuine locus classicus of dignity discussion; (3) Immanuel Kant is not the early modern proprietor of the concept; (4) the universalization of the concept of dignity in the postmodern world (ca. 1800–present) is not the result of its constitutional indoctrination by the “wise forefathers” of liberal states like America or France.

This chapter will consider whether an inhabitant of a liberal state needs to be informed of all her government’s policies in order for that government to have legitimate authority to compel her actions. Another way of putting this question is whether government authority in a liberal state depends on full transparency. Security actors in a liberal state are charged with maintaining a relatively crime-free and peaceful society because such an environment is a necessary precondition for a person’s full enjoyment of her rights over time. State agents should pick consent-worthy tactics indexed to this consent-worthy end. Since efficacious tactics may be in tension with respect for people’s rights, consent-worthy tactics will be those that are the most efficacious, effective, reliable, proportionate, and rights-respecting available. Transparency is not necessary for legitimacy since legitimate government actions are indexed to the hypothetical consent of a generic person rather than the explicit consent of particular people. Transparency is necessary for inhabitants to ensure that state agents do not err or become corrupt in the pursuit of otherwise legitimate aims. Yet the complete disclosure of government actions will compromise some legitimate security-seeking missions. In these cases, the moral need for secrecy trumps the need for disclosure. Liberal governments then can conceal the existence of certain programs without compromising their authority to implement them. Secrecy opens the door to corruption, but thankfully, these parameters apply to few tactics.

Approaches towards the formal learning of piano playing with respect to musicianship is one that demands the understanding of musical concepts and their applications. Consequently, it requires the boldness to immerse oneself in performance situations while trusting one’s instincts. One needs only to cultivate an amazing ear and a good understanding of music theory to break down progressions “quickly”. Like an alchemist, one would have to pick their creative impulses from their musical toolbox, simultaneously compelling their fingers to coordinate with the brain and the music present to generate “pleasant sounds”. My exploration leading to what will be considered Keyboard Musicianship did not begin in a formal setting. Rather it was the consolidation of my involvement in playing the organ at home, Sunday school, boarding school at Presec-Legon, and playing at weekly gospel band performances off-campus and other social settings that crystalized approaches that can be formally structured. In fact, I did not then consider this lifestyle of musical interpretation worthy of academic inclusivity until I graduated from the national academy of music and was taken on the staff as an instructor in September, 1986. Apparently, what I did that seemed effortless was a special area that was integral to holistic music development. The late Dr. Robert Manford, the then director of the Academy, assigned me to teach Rudiments and Theory of Music to first year students, Keyboard Musicianship to final year students, and to continue giving Piano Accompaniment to students – just as I have been voluntarily doing to help students. The challenge was simply this; there was no official textbook or guide to use in teaching keyboard musicianship then and I was to help guide especially non-piano majors for practical exams in musicianship. What an enterprise! The good news though was that exemplifying functionalism in keyboard, organ, piano, etc. has been my survival activity off campus particularly in church and social settings.Having reflected thoroughly and prayerfully, it dawned on me that piano literacy repertoires were crafted differently than my assignments in Musicianship. Piano literacy repertoires of western music were abundant on campus but applied musicianship demanded a different approach. Playing a sonata, sonatina, mazurka, and waltzes at different proficiency levels was different from punching chords in R&B, Ballard style, Reggae, Highlife or even Hymn playing. However, there are approaches that can link them and also interpretations that can categorize them in other applicable dimensions. A “Retrospective Introspection” demanded that I confront myself constructively with two questions: 1. WHAT MUSICAL ACTIVITIES have I already enjoyed myself in that WARRANT or deserve this challenging assignment? 2. WHAT MUSICAL NOURISHMENT do l believe enriched my artistry that was so observable and Measurable? The answers were shocking! They were: 1. My weekend sojourn from Winneba to Accra to play for churches, brass bands, gospel bands and teaching of Choirs – which often left me penniless. 2. Volunteering to render piano accompaniment to any Voice Major student on campus since my very first year. 3. Applying a principle, I learnt from my father – TRANSFER OF LEARNING – I exported the functionalism of my off-campus musical activities to compliment my formal/academic work. 4. The improvisational influences of Rev. Stevenson Alfred Williams (gospel jazz pianist), Bessa Simmons (band director & keyboardist) and at Ghana Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Ray Ellis “Afro Piano Jazz Fusion Highlife” The trust and support from lecturers and students in the academy injected an overwhelming and high sense of responsibility in me which nevertheless, guided me to observe structures of other established course outlines and apply myself with respect to approaches that were deemed relevant. Thus, it is in this light that I selected specific concepts worth exploring to validate the functionalism of what my assignment required. Initially, hymn structures, chords I, IV, V and short highlife chordal progressions inverted here and there were considered. Basic reading of notes and intense audiation were injected even as I developed technical exercises to help with the dexterity of stiff fingers. I conclude this preface by stating that, this “Instructional guide/manual” is actually a developmental workbook. I have deliberately juxtaposed simple original piano pieces with musicianship approaches. The blend is to equip learners to develop music literacy and performance proficiencies. The process is expected to compel the learner to immerse/initiate themselves into basic keyboard musicianship. While it is a basic book, I expect it to be a solid foundation for those who commit to it. Many of my former and present students have been requesting for a sort of guide to aid their teaching or refresh their memories. Though not exhaustive, the selections presented here are a response to a long-awaited workbook. I have used most of them not only in Winneba, but also at the Callanwolde Fine Arts Center (Atlanta) and the Piano Lab (Accra). I found myself teaching the same course in the 2009 – 2013 academic year in the Music Department of the University of Education, Winneba when Prof C.W.K Merekeu was Head of Department. My observation is that we still have a lot of work to do in bridging academia and industry. This implies that musicianship must be considered as the bloodline of musicality not only in theory but in practice. I have added simplified versions of my old course outlines as a guide for anyone interested in learning. Finally, I contend that Keyboard Musicianship is a craft and will require of the learner a consistent discipline and respect for: 1. The art of listening 2. Skill acquisition/proficient dexterity 3. Ability to interpret via extemporization and delivery/showmanship. For learners who desire to challenge themselves in intermediate and advanced piano, I recommend my book, “African Pianism. (A contribution to Africology)”