Sure there may be some people that get their NCEA through picking up rubbish or working in a group or whatever, but those people aren't really the kind of people who are going to go on to need calculus in their lives. For them, learning to apply for a benefit might actually be useful. For the student with promise, it's peer pressure that's going to encourage them to take on the "hard" subjects like maths and the sciences. I was in the first year of NCEA (in each of the levels, and scholarship), and even given the option of getting your qualifications without learning anything, most people at my (low decile college) chose to go the traditional route of English, science and maths. Not to mention that the universities all require 6th form/Year 12 NCEA level 2 English, and a passing mark in calc and stats to do a Maths or Comp Sci major for instance, there is certainly no chance that tomorrow's NZer is going to be an uneducated git.
Despite the uproar about NCEA spurred on by the media, it's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be. It's certainly different from the old School Cert, but that alone doesn't make it bad.
Yes, silly District Court judge... Honourable intention is still intention; the guy should've been convicted. Sure, maybe given a suspended sentence, but at least convicted.
The crime requires intention, his actions were intentional, therefore he commited an intentional crime. Whether he knew it was a crime or not is beside the point (in the eyes of the law, ignorantia juris non excusat).
Yes, but are you required and legally bound to sell it for that price if anyone wants to?
When somebody offers something for sale, it's generally regarded as being just an invitation to treat - it is up to the buyer to make the offer, which the seller can then choose to accept unconditionally, to make a counter-offer for a different amount, or to reject outright. Unless the seller specifically says "I will sell to whoever comes to me unconditionally" and makes clear all the necessary terms then it cannot be considered an offer capable of being accepted.
If you did make an offer (not an invitation to treat) and every person you offered it to came to you accepting it, then you would certainly be legally bound to sell it for that price and under those terms. Incidentally and only from memory, the Court said that you can't make a contract with all the world, you can only make an offer to all the world.
In UK law, and generally across the common law world (as far as I know at least), just showing a price tag or advertisement is an invitation to treat, that is, an indication of willingness to negotiate for the item advertised. For it to be an offer, there has to be an intention to be bound on sufficiently certain terms. If you have these two things you can in fact make an offer to all the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure there may be some people that get their NCEA through picking up rubbish or working in a group or whatever, but those people aren't really the kind of people who are going to go on to need calculus in their lives. For them, learning to apply for a benefit might actually be useful. For the student with promise, it's peer pressure that's going to encourage them to take on the "hard" subjects like maths and the sciences. I was in the first year of NCEA (in each of the levels, and scholarship), and even given the option of getting your qualifications without learning anything, most people at my (low decile college) chose to go the traditional route of English, science and maths. Not to mention that the universities all require 6th form/Year 12 NCEA level 2 English, and a passing mark in calc and stats to do a Maths or Comp Sci major for instance, there is certainly no chance that tomorrow's NZer is going to be an uneducated git.
Despite the uproar about NCEA spurred on by the media, it's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be. It's certainly different from the old School Cert, but that alone doesn't make it bad.
Yes, silly District Court judge... Honourable intention is still intention; the guy should've been convicted. Sure, maybe given a suspended sentence, but at least convicted.
The crime requires intention, his actions were intentional, therefore he commited an intentional crime. Whether he knew it was a crime or not is beside the point (in the eyes of the law, ignorantia juris non excusat).
For "Australia" read "New Zealand"?
When somebody offers something for sale, it's generally regarded as being just an invitation to treat - it is up to the buyer to make the offer, which the seller can then choose to accept unconditionally, to make a counter-offer for a different amount, or to reject outright. Unless the seller specifically says "I will sell to whoever comes to me unconditionally" and makes clear all the necessary terms then it cannot be considered an offer capable of being accepted.
If you did make an offer (not an invitation to treat) and every person you offered it to came to you accepting it, then you would certainly be legally bound to sell it for that price and under those terms. Incidentally and only from memory, the Court said that you can't make a contract with all the world, you can only make an offer to all the world.
In UK law, and generally across the common law world (as far as I know at least), just showing a price tag or advertisement is an invitation to treat, that is, an indication of willingness to negotiate for the item advertised. For it to be an offer, there has to be an intention to be bound on sufficiently certain terms. If you have these two things you can in fact make an offer to all the world.