The Importance of Public Speaking Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

The Importance of Public Speaking - Essay Example The orators could entertain their listeners in a number of ways such as taking the help of humor, speaking in a sincere manner, using visual aids to add appeal to their speech, adding (or removing) emotions out of their voice and timing the speech in an effective manner. The rate of speech delivery (that is words per minute) should be deliberated so that every person could clearly hear all your words. The speaker should pay attention to his pitch and inflection and work over voice modulation so as to demand highest attention from the audience. Incorporation of vocal variety in speeches is effective mannerism of grabbing audience attention. Pauses also have great significance in speeches and you should know how to successfully use them. While giving us breathing space, pauses also help reinforce the subject matter with the audience- letting them absorb and deliberate over matters of consequence. So, the speaker should use the pause with care drawing out maximum advantage out of it. The voice volume should also be controlled so that everyone in the room hears your voice while you are not sounding loud in their ears. Articulation must be practiced so that every word is spoken with clarity. The words must also be pronounced correctly in the standard order of language. Facial expressions assist in speech delivery. However, you need to choose beforehand which facial expression would suit your speech and practice on it. Finally, the speaker should practice before hand his speech delivery method so that when the day of Speech is an art form that gets better with practice so the speakers should practice the art of speech giving in private as well as in public to master it and become effective public speakers. In the course of speech giving the delivery should be adjusted as and when required so that the message is conveyed to the audience in a clear manner. And lastly, try to make eye contact with your audience

Business Law Organisations Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Business Law Organisations - Essay Example Since â€Å"unfairly prejudicial† is not defined by the Act, this means that there are broad reasons why a minority shareholder may bring a cause of action against a corporation, which effectively negates the constraints established by Foss. This paper will examine Foss, will examine derivative actions, and will examine the Companies Act (2006), concluding that, while Section 260 of the Act does not provide shareholders with any more protection than what was had under Foss, section 994 does provide this protection. Foss v. Harbottle Even though shareholders are effective in holding directors accountable, the UK courts have a common law rule, delineated in Foss v. Harbottle (1840) 67 ER 189. In this case, two minority shareholders accused the defendants, who were the directors of a company called â€Å"Victoria Park Company,† of misapplying land, wasting land and obtaining improper mortgages, without the permission of the shareholders. The court in the Foss case dismisse d the shareholders case, stating that only the company itself has a right to sue the directors. The reasoning for this might be best stated by the court in a subsequent case, Edwards v. Halliwell [1950] 2 All ER 1064. The judge in this case states that the sound reason why minority shareholders cannot bring an action against directors is that, if there is only a minority bringing the case, it would mean that the majority of the company is in favor of what was done. Ramsay & Saunders (2006) state that there are two prongs to the Foss case – one, it established the â€Å"proper plaintiff† who is the company itself; two, it established the principle that directors should be independent and not subject to shareholder meddling into business affairs (Ramsay & Saunders, 2006). There are exceptions to the Foss rule. One is that the company did an illegal or ultra vires act. A shareholder can bring an action on this basis, because the majority cannot ratify an illegal or ultra vires act (Wedderburn, 1957; Cockburn v. Newbridge Sanitary Steam Laundry Co. [1915] 1 IR 237). Another exception is that, if the company takes an action which, in the company’s constitution, requires a â€Å"special majority† to take this action, then a minority shareholder may sue if the company takes this action in contravention to its own constitution (Black, 1983; Edwards v Halliwell [1950] 2 All ER 1064). Berkahn (1998) states that another exception is that a shareholder’s â€Å"personal rights† have somehow been infringed by the corporation, therefore that shareholder has a right to sue for his personal rights infringement (Berkahn, 1998; Pender v Lushington (1877) 6 Ch D 70). Another exception is the â€Å"fraud on the minority† exception, which means that the wrong-doers actions amounts to fraud (Lo, 2004; Atwool v Merryweather (1867) LR 5 EQ 464n). Buckley (1976) states that this last action is the only derivative action of the exceptions , as the first three exceptions involve personal actions. Therefore, according to Maloney (1986), this action is the only true exception to Foss (Maloney, 1986). Statutory Actions Although Foss limited the actions that minority shareholders can take, statutory actions have restored many of the rights of the minority. One is that the Companies Act (2006) has given shareholder permission to bring