Decision of Ex Parte Datafin plc Analysis

Decision of Ex Parte Datafin plc Analysis A critical analysis of the manner in which the decision in R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers; Ex parte Datafin plc [1987] 1 QB 815 is being dealt with under Australian law. Introduction The case of Datafin is an accepted element of public law in England; however Australian law is unclear to its applicability as courts reference the principle cautiously in the absence of a case pertaining substantive facts. The Datafin principle provides that a decision-making body may be subject to judicial review whether it is exercises its power from statute or private contract. That is to say, both the source and the nature of the power being exercised are to be considered when determining if a body is amenable to judicial review. In Australia, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (‘ADJR Act’) provides a statutory right to judicial review however a common law right (which may exist under the Datafin principle) is yet to be decided. Without a final decision from the High Court as to its applicability, the Datafin principle will continue to be dealt with tentatively on a case by case basis. However recent cases from lower and appellate courts indicate that the principle will most likely apply here as it does in England when a case with the relevant facts arises. Current Position in Australian Law There is no clear authority for the adoption of Datafin in Australia despite many decisions with reference to the principle. The closest the courts have come to taking an authoritative position regarding Datafin is the High Courts ruling in NEAT Domestic Training Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd.[1] This case marked a ‘paradigm shift’ in the delivery of administrative governmental services from being almost purely derived from statute to a mixture of private and public bodies.[2] In this case the High Court took an interpretation of Datafin to focus solely on the source of the power with no consideration to the power’s possible administrative/public nature. However, the conclusion in NEAT was very much limited to unique facts of the case and did not intend to be taken as a response to the broader issue of whether Datafin applies in Australia (i.e. whether public law remedies such as judicial review can be granted against private bodies). In this case, the improper exercise of discretionary power was argued by a wheat trader against the Australian Wheat Board (AWB). However since the AWB was a private body brought into effect by the Corporations Law (Vic), it was found that its power was not derived from the statute which NEAT was arguing under (the Wheat Marketing Act 1989). The AWB’s decision-making power was therefore not subject to the ADJR Act which sets out a requirement that decisions must be made â€Å"under an enactment† in order to be amenable to judicial review. Justice Kirby argued an in-depth and seemingly valid dissent in favour of adopting the Datafin principle to apply to the four:one majority decision. He raised the concern that if the wheat board was not amenable to judicial review it would essentially hold almost complete and unreviewable power over Australia’s wheat export industry. Therefore, the interests of the nation (or an issue of public significance) are irrefutably affected by a private body; a point acknowledged but not expressly addressed by Gleeson CJ. A conclusion can be drawn from NEAT that only the source and not the nature of the power is relevant when determining applicability of judicial review in Australia. This conclusion is alarming when considering the Commonwealth could effectively insulate itself from all legal and political accountability if each public decision-making body was privatised in a similar fashion to AWB Ltd.[3] An example of this conclusion can be seen in Griffith University v Tang,[4] where a student excluded from enrolment in university failed in her request for judicial review due to the university not making their decision under an enactment. Despite the university being deemed a ‘public’ decision-maker,[5] the judgements consider the nature of the university’s relationship to Tang to be voluntary (i.e. ‘private’). Therefore the source of power element could not be satisfied removing the need for the court to consider the substantive nature of the power.[6] In reaching this decision, their Honours accepted the reverse possibility that a private decision-maker could be considered ‘public’ and therefore amenable to judicial review.[7] The main implication of the decision in NEAT is that courts have essentially been advised not to make a decision about the applicability of Datafin until it is absolutely necessary.[8] Evidence of this deferral to make a decision about the principle has the courts intentionally not mentioning it in judgements even when parties make extensive submissions on Datafin to base their arguments. For example, the unanimous decision in the Offshore Processing Case[9] did not mention Datafin even once despite multiple submissions by both parties. Gradual Acceptance of the Datafin Principle by Australian Courts In Masu Financial Management Pty Ltd v Financial Industry Complaints Service Ltd,[10] a corporation which dealt with financial industry complaints was deemed susceptible to judicial review. Justice Shaw described the corporation as a ‘public’ body, pointing to government involvement in its foundation and processes. Here it was held that the preponderance of authority in Australia indicates that Datafin is applicable, at least to companies administering external complaints in the finance industry.[11] In contrast, the case of Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries[12]allowed Basten JA to explore the applicability of Datafin where he concluded that the decision Masu and did not amount to authority of acceptance of the principle.[13] Prior to this 2010 decision, Datafin had been referred to in Australian law with ‘apparent approval’.[14] Regardless, the Masu decision provided a foundation for Kyrou J’s later decision in CECA Institute Pty Ltd v Australian Council for Private Education and Training.[15] In this case it was held that the Datafin principle may render a private body to be subject to judicial review if that body is performing a ‘public duty’ or exercising a power with a ‘public element’. Defining a ‘public element’ of a decision, once described as â€Å"question-begging†[16] can be reasonably objectively determined from extensive English case law.[17] In the circumstances of this case, a link to a ‘public element’ could not be established and the matter was instead settled by private law.[18] A similar but more recent judgement in Mickovski v FOS[19] also suggested that the Datafin principle applies to Australian law provided the necessary public element can be satisfied.[20] In this case, an argument was raised that a public element existed by way of requiring a mechanism for private dispute resolution. However Pagone J held that the Datafin test failed as the corporation did not exercise government functions and its power over its members was derived from contract (therefore only allowing private law remedies). In doing so, the judgement cited and affirmed Kyrou J’s reasoning from Masu.[21] Shortly after this decision, the Australian Law Journal published an article by Kyrou J examining Datafin’s applicability to Australian law.[22] Justice Kyrou cited the Mickovski decision as an authority for the rule’s acceptance. However since the paper was published, Mickovski was appealed.[23] In the appeal, although dismissed, Pagone J was overruled in that the Datafin principle did not apply to the facts considering there was no public law justification for the request of judicial review. The Court explained in its dismissal of the appeal that with increasing privatisation of various government functions comes the need for the availability of judicial review in relation to administrative and public functions.[24] At [31], it was said that the Datafin principle provides a ‘logical’, approach to satisfy that requirement.[25] Buchanan, Nettle JJA and Beach AJA went on to conclude that it is doubtful that even a wide interpretation of Datafin would be appl icable to contract-based decisions.[26] Therefore, Kyrou’s argument and call for approval is not discredited and it appears likely that the Datafin test will be appropriate when the relevant facts and circumstances arise in future. It is significant to the current position that Datafin has never been rejected in Australian courts. However cases exist which are unfavourable to its ‘apparent approval’ prior to Chase. In particular, in Khuu Lee Pty Ltd v Corporation of the City of Adelaide,[27] it was specifically stated by Vanstone J in the Supreme Court of South Australia that Datafin â€Å"has not yet been adopted in Australia†.[28] At [30], her honour said â€Å"within intermediate appellate courts there are, at best, conflicting views as to whether [Datafin] represents the common law of Australia†. Should Datafin Apply in Australian Law? Writing extra-judicially, now-retired QC, Raymond Finkelstein stated that the courts’ function in relation to administrative law and judicial review should be to â€Å"ensure that all bodies – private or otherwise – that perform public functions do so in accordance with the law.†[29] Senior University of NSW Professor, Mark Aronson hints at the applicability of Datafin in Australian law and argues that â€Å"public power is increasingly exercised from places within the private sector, by non-government bodies, and according to rules found in management manuals rather than statute books. If judicial review is about the restraint of public power, it will need to confront these shifts in who exercises public power, and in the rules by which they exercise it.†[30] A similar sentiment was held by Kyrou J in his decision in Masu that Datafin â€Å"represents a natural development in the evolution of the principles of judicial review†¦ [It] is essential in enabling superior courts to continue to perform their vital role of protecting citizens from abuses in the exercise of powers which are governmental in nature†.[31] Since the Datafin principle has been adopted in Canada and New Zealand, there is also an argument supported by Kyrou J that on a constitutional level, Australia ‘should be consistent with the law of other important common law jurisdictions’.[32] The arguments put forward are not without criticism however. The evolution of private bodies administering administrative/public functions is considered by some to be a new area of law which requires fresh regulation rather than ‘shoehorning’ the issues to fit into Datafin.[33] This arguably explains why the principle is so reservedly discussed in judgements where the elements of Datafin frequently cannot be made out. The granting of judicial review against a private body’s excision of power which was neither statutory nor executive has occurred only once in Australia (in the case of Masu). Most cases which reference Datafin do so in obiter dicta simply to raise overlaps with other areas of law which have more established remedies and boundaries than attempting to expand administrative law principles. That is not to say more than one area of law cannot co-exist with certainty. Conclusion Despite significant and extensive ‘apparent approval’ of the Datafin principle, it is impossible to determine the validity of the rule in the absence of a High Court decision. However, the number of cases citing Datafin with favourable obiter appears to outweigh the number of cases which reference it with reservation. Whilst the obiter of NEAT recognises Datafin’s applicability in Australian law going forward, the actual decision of the case lends authority against its adoption. Regardless, in the unlikely event that the Datafin principle is rejected, private decision-making bodies performing public and administrative functions will not be immune to judicial review. The increasing trend of government divestment of administrative functions to private bodies will simply be dealt with judicial independence, allowing natural justice to form a either more refined interpretation of the Datafin principle. Bibliography Cases CECA Institute Pty Ltd v Australian Council for Private Education and Training (2010) 30 VR 555. Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd (2010) 78 NSWLR 393 Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 99 Griffith University v Tang (2005) 213 ALR 724 Khuu Lee Pty Ltd v Adelaide City Corporation (2011) 110 SASR 235. Masu Financial Management Pty Ltd v Financial Industry Complaints Service Ltd (No 2) (2004) 50 ACSR 554 Mickovski v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2011] VSC 257 Mickovski v Financial Ombudsman Services Limited Anor [2012] VSCA 185 Mickovski v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd (2012) 91 ASCR 106 NEAT Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 277 Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth (2010) 243 CLR 319 R (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers’ Markets Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 233 R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers; Ex parte Datafin plc [1987] 1 QB 815 Textbooks Matthew Groves (ed), Modern Administrative Law In Australia: Concepts And Context (Cambridge University Press, Australia, 2014) Journals Neil Arora, ‘Not so neat: non-statutory corporations and the reach of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977’ (2004) 32(1) Federal Law Review 141 Emillos Kyrou, ‘Judicial review of decisions of non-governmental bodies exercising governmental powers : is Datafin part of Australian law?’ (2012) 86(1) Australian Law Journal 20 Katherine Cook, ‘Recent Developments in Administrative Law’ (2012) 71 AIAL (Australia Institute of Administrative Law) Forum 1 Graeme Hill, ‘Griffith University v Tang – Comparison with Neat Domestic, and the Relevance of Constitutional Factors’ (2005) 47 AIAL (Australia Institute of Administrative Law) Forum 6 Matthew Groves, ‘Should we follow the Gospel of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)?’ (2010) 34 Melbourne University Law Review 737 Mark Aronson, ‘Private Bodies, Public Power and Soft Law in the High Court’ (2007) 35 Federal Law Review 1 Raymond Finkelstein, â€Å"Crossing the Intersection: How Courts are Navigating the ‘Public’ and ‘Private’ in Judicial Review† (2006) 48 AIAL (Australia Institute of Administrative Law) Forum 1 Other CCH, Australian Company Law Commentary, ‘Internal and external dispute resolution procedures – ASIC’s policy: s 912A(1)(g), (2)’ (at 26 August 2013) [273-300]. 1 Sean Roche, N8844330 [1] NEAT Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 277. [2] Neil Arora, ‘Not so neat: non-statutory corporations and the reach of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977’ (2004) 32(1) Federal Law Review 141, 161. [3] Neil Arora, ‘Not so neat: non-statutory corporations and the reach of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977’ (2004) 32(1) Federal Law Review 141, 160. [4] (2005) 221 CLR 99. [5] Griffith University v Tang (2005) 213 ALR 724 at 750-751 [108]-[110]. [6] Griffith University v Tang (2005) 213 ALR 724 at 766 [159]-[160]. [7] Graeme Hill, ‘Griffith University v Tang – Comparison with Neat Domestic, and the Relevance of Constitutional Factors’ (2005) 47 AIAL (Australia Institute of Administrative Law) Forum 6, 8. [8] (2012) 91 ASCR 106, [32]. [9] Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth (2010) 243 CLR 319. [10] Masu Financial Management Pty Ltd v Financial Industry Complaints Service Ltd (No 2) (2004) 50 ACSR 554. [11] CCH, Australian Company Law Commentary, ‘Internal and external dispute resolution procedures – ASIC’s policy: s 912A(1)(g), (2)’ (at 26 August 2013) [273-300]. [12] Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd (2010) 78 NSWLR 393. [13] Chris Finn, ‘The public/private distinction and the reach of administrative law’ in Matthew Groves (ed), Modern Administrative Law In Australia: Concepts And Context (Cambridge University Press, Australia, 2014) 3, 56. [14] Emillos Kyrou, ‘Judicial review of decisions of non-governmental bodies exercising governmental powers: is Datafin part of Australian law?’ (2012) 86(1) Australian Law Journal 20, 22. [15] CECA Institute Pty Ltd v Australian Council for Private Education and Training (2010) 30 VR 555. [16] R (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers’ Markets Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 233, [16]. [17] Emillos Kyrou, ‘Judicial review of decisions of non-governmental bodies exercising governmental powers: is Datafin part of Australian law?’ (2012) 86(1) Australian Law Journal 20, 31. [18] Ibid, 570, 576. [19] Mickovski v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2011] VSC 257. [20] Ibid, [12]. [21] Mickovski v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2011] VSC 257, [9]. [22] Emillos Kyrou, ‘Judicial review of decisions of non-governmental bodies exercising governmental powers: is Datafin part of Australian law?’ (2012) 86(1) Australian Law Journal 20-33. [23] Mickovski v Financial Ombudsman Service Limited Anor [2012] VSCA 185. [24] Katherine Cook, ‘Recent Developments in Administrative Law’ (2012) 71 AIAL Forum 1. [25] [2012] VSCA 185, [31]. [26] Katherine Cook, ‘Recent Developments in Administrative Law’ (2012) 71 AIAL Forum 1. [27] (2011) 110 SASR 235. [28] Ibid, [26]. [29] Raymond Finkelstein, â€Å"Crossing the Intersection: How Courts are Navigating the ‘Public’ and ‘Private’ in Judicial Review† (2006) 48 AIAL Forum 1-7. [30] Mark Aronson, ‘Private Bodies, Public Power and Soft Law in the High Court’ (2007) 35 Federal Law Review 1. 4. [31] Ibid, 99. [32] Emillos Kyrou, ‘Judicial review of decisions of non-governmental bodies exercising governmental powers: is Datafin part of Australian law?’ (2012) 86(1) Australian Law Journal 20, 30. [33] Matthew Groves, ‘Should we follow the Gospel of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)?’ (2010) 34 Melbourne University Law Review 737, 749.

Case Study on Frank Drake Business Planning

Business planning Case study This case study has three separate sections to it. The case material is given below, and then there is: †¢ A worksheet based on the case study (including the development of a full business plan) †¢ An interactive quiz Taktical. com Frank Drake is a software engineer with a major multinational firm and a highly experienced programmer. He is also a keen racing sailor, and for many years in his spare time he has been developing a piece of software to help racing sailors plan their tactics for a race.The software enables you to input a wide range of variables, including the weather, the tide, the nature of the course, the boat characteristics and information about the competition. From this you can then develop a strategy for the race. After the race you can input your decisions and test them against what the software considered the optimum strategy. Frank has used it widely and found it very effective and he has also given copies of it to sailing f riends for them to test.They have frequently commented that he should sell it, and he has finally decided to leave his job and set up a company to sell and market the product. He has decided that the most effective way to distribute it would be through the internet and so he is planning to set up a sales and promotion web site called taktical. com. The software itself will be available through a CD. To make the software more marketable he will need to employ some other programmers and designers.He is planning to work from home initially and he estimates his initial set-up costs to be as follows: †¢ Software costs – ? 4,000 †¢ E-commerce set-up and hosting – ? 1,250 †¢ Design costs – ? 950 He has allocated ? 3,600 for his marketing budget, though he has not yet decided the most appropriate marketing methods to use. He has investigated carefully to see what other similar products are available and believes he has found a niche in the market, though there are some other sailing simulation packages, but these are mostly game-style ones and not targeted at serious sailors.He feels that this is a premium product targeted at a small niche and so he is able to set a relatively high price. He has discussed this with sailing friends and it is clear that price is not very important in their decision about whether to buy the product. He is planning therefore to charge ? 65 for each CD produced. He expects the variable costs of each unit to be: †¢ ? 2. 50 per CD produced †¢ ? 5. 25 for each manual produced †¢ ? 2. 25 postage/distribution costHe will be starting to sell the product at the start of March 2004 and expects sales for the first year to be:    |Mar |Apr |May |Jun |July |Aug |Sept |Oct |Nov |Dec |Jan |Feb | |Sales |15 |20 |25 |45 |40 |35 |25 |10 |10 |45 |15 |25 | |He is going to approach the bank to try to raise ? 10,000 start-up funding, but needs some help developing his business plan. Why not have a go at the worksheet or the quiz associated with this case study. Business planning Case study – Worksheet Before starting this worksheet, make sure you have thoroughly read the case material.

Premium Jeans Essay - 1083 Words

PrSummary: This case study talks about the slowdown in the premium jeans market. The first slowdown was in 2007, after that time premium jeans never the same. Between 2008 and 2010 the premium denim prices fell 10-15 percent over this time period. There were different tactics these premium denim designers including 7 for mankind, True Religion, Diesel, Joe Jeans and Levi Strauss tried to attempt to maintain their positions. Some did this by lowering the price of jeans, creating lower priced jeans (i.e. recession collection and jeggings), creating more brands and stores. This case study also talked about the major effects that things like economic issues (i.e. the recession) and rising cotton prices (due to low stockpiles, heavy rains and†¦show more content†¦Diesel’s revenue not only came from making jeans it also came from producing products like wine, cars, fragrances, sun glasses, shoes, and watches. Does True Religion enjoy a competitive advantage in the segment? If so, is its advantage sustainable? I would say that True Religion enjoy a competitive advantage in the segment because this was a company that had been through a slowdown in sales then rose then fell again. Within the times of falling revenue the company still managed to develop strategies so that it wouldn’t end up like other companies such as rock amp; republic that filed for bankruptcy. Even when this brand first started out it had a competitive advantage over 7 for all mankind that only offered 2 basic styles of jeans, True Religion offered 5 styles. Then overtime True Religion became â€Å"one of the highest priced on the market with an average selling point of $196 for woman’s jeans and $192 for men’s jeans in 2009†. This gives give the True Religion brand jeans the sustainability that it needs to stay ahead. Another advantage it had over its competitors is the use of off price retailers such as Nordstrom rack and its outlet stores which lead to â€Å"slow-moving and obsolete invento ry†. True Religion’s was able to sustain exclusive third-party distributors to gain access to upscale retailers in foreign markets. They did this by selling their products toShow MoreRelatedLevis Strauss Canada Holding an Ember: the Gwg Brand1653 Words   |  7 PagesQ1.Why do consumers buy jeans? What is the buying decision based on? - Jeans were invented in 1873 by Levy Strauss. Consumers’ perceptions about jeans are following: 1. Durable and extra strong-In terms of durability Jeans are considered more durable than other fabric pants .This extra strong image attracts customers for the feel of rough and tough personality. 2. Symbol of rebellion :Blue jeans were adopted as a workers’ jeans and in the 1950 they became a symbol of rebellion when stars suchRead MoreStp Analysis of Levis1135 Words   |  5 PagesIn 1873, a European immigrant Jacob Davis and Levi Strauss agreed to patent the idea of Davis with financial help from Levis Strauss and their first product was identified by lot no. 501. Levi’s takes pride in making original and authenticated jeans. They define a wide quality of products, from quintessential classics to favorite fits and styles. Their products range from shirts to cotton pants, from accessories and belts to ladies bags, from sunglasses and wallets to jackets and shoes. TodayRead MoreWhat Are the Key Success Factors (Ksf) in the Japanese Marketplace1917 Words   |  8 Pagesmid-1980’s jeans grew because of the changing trends or Japanese adolescence. Casual wear and leisure time became more popular during this time period. The Decade after this the market for jeans shrunk. Levi Strauss moved into Japan in 1991 Japan was already a competitive market with brands like Edwin, Big John, Bobson, Wrangler and Lee already there Denim in seen as premium fashion item In the beginning Levi Strauss used specialty stores to sell merchandise. Because of the premium image denimRead MoreMarketing Project (Jeans)2607 Words   |  11 Pages November 22, 2012 Introduction Born and raised in Los Angeles, Paige Premium Denim is one of the worlds leading denim brands with its signature perfect fit and unmatched variety of styles that flatter the body. Paige Premium Denim was founded in 2004 by fit model Paige Adams-Geller on the principle that you don’t have to be a size zero to look great and feel great in a pair of designer jeans. Committed to using the highest quality materials, the denim line infuses considered,Read MoreTrue Religion Jeans Case Analysis1759 Words   |  8 PagesCostello 10/20/17 Professor Celo True Religion Jeans Case The ups and downs of the premium jeans industry and the constant fluctuating of threats to the industry made it interesting to see how the denim lines would respond. They were originated in the 1970s by Calvin Klein who created highly priced, skin tight jeans who used celebrities (i.e. Brooke Shields) to endorse the product. Since they were higher priced compared to your common, regular blue jeans sold by mainstream brands like Lee and WranglerRead MoreLevis marketing strategy in relation to Type I Jeans model.3599 Words   |  15 Pagestargeting of the jeans market with respect to: - product - price - place - promotion 2. Using independent quantitative survey to analyse and compare the validity of Levis marketing strategy in respect of market segmentation and promotion appeal. 3. Analyse and comment on the strategy of Levis and its approach in maintaining leadership in the jeans market. 2. SWOT analysis. INTERNAL - Strengths Position: Levis has a market leading position, Levis is the most named brand of jeans bought or receivedRead MoreLevis Stp Analysis1539 Words   |  7 PagesSept. 2009). From 2002to 2007 the jeans market  grew 28%; growth is expected to be  18% from 2007 to 2012,  just a little faster than inflation (â€Å"Jeans† Mar. 2008). The same report believes that the growth in 2002  to2007 was â€Å"above trend† while the growth expected between 2007 and 2012 is more â€Å"normal†. Premium denim sales rose 24% for women and  45% for men. Sales in 2007  for the jeans market was $16.7 billion, while the projected  sales for 2012 is $19.7 billion (â€Å"Jeans† Mar. 2008). ------------------------------------------------- Read MoreBuckle Company Merchandise Report - Apparel Buying1408 Words   |  6 Pageslocation that we visited has a huge Forever 21 store to compete with about three stores down. Buckle carries a range of premium denim - which could not be compared to the price points of Forever 21, but customers generally know that the quality of Forever 21 jeans is poor, and the premium denim that Buckle carries is great quality (and they offer free hemming and alterations on their jeans along with free special orders). The tops from Buckle were similar in styles to something one might purchase at ForeverRead MoreLevi Strauss Case Study1900 Words   |  8 PagesIntroduction: This paper deals with the marketing strategies for the Levis Strauss brands to become the top brand in the world in various kinds of jeans and other apparels. Levis Strauss is having the 75% share in the GWG but allowed them to maintain in their own way. The GWG was also the first to produce pre-washed jeans and had a good position in the market. GWG and Levis Strauss Canada were concentrated on the high class people and not much concentrated on the retail market with this oneRead MoreDiesel Marketing Strategy6776 Words   |  28 PagesIntroduction    Jeans are a classic and timeless piece of clothing. This product is now worn by all generations across the globe. At a time when the number of brands offering jeans have grown considerably, Levi s, the market leader, now faces strong competition from Diesel, which has emerged as a must-have brand owing to its originality and creativity, with daring and provocative style and cuts. Founded in 1978 by Renzo Rosso (photo), the company offered an entirely novel concept: original jeans, achieved

Assesment of Victory and Defeat in the Cuban Missile Crisis

INTRODUCTION The closest the world has come to nuclear war was the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. The Soviets had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles off the coast of the United States. U.S. armed forces were at their highest state of readiness and demanded that the Soviet Union remove these missiles and imposed a naval blockade on Cuba, threatening to sink any Soviet ships that approached the island without permitting their cargoes to be inspected. Soviet field commanders in Cuba were authorized to use tactical nuclear weapons if invaded by the U.S. The fate of millions literally hinged upon the decisions of two men, President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev. The crisis escalated and reached a†¦show more content†¦Ever since the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, Castro felt a second attack was inevitable. Consequently, he approved of Khrushchevs plan to place missiles on the island. In the summer of 1962 the Soviet Union worked quickly and secre tly to build its missile installations in Cuba. For the United States, the crisis began on October 15, 1962 when photographs revealed Soviet missiles under construction in Cuba. The next day, President John Kennedy was informed of the missile installations. Kennedy immediately organized the EX-COMM; a group of his twelve most important advisors to handle the crisis. After seven days of guarded and intense debate within his government, Kennedy concluded to impose a naval quarantine around Cuba. He wished to prevent the arrival of more Soviet offensive weapons on the island. On October 22, Kennedy announced the discovery of the missile installations to the public and his decision to quarantine the island. He also proclaimed that any nuclear missile launched from Cuba would be regarded as an attack on the United States by the Soviet Union and demanded that the Soviets remove all of their offensive weapons from Cuba6. During the public phase of the Crisis, tensions began to build on both sides. Then on the 26th EX-COMM heard from Khrushchev in an impassioned letter. He proposed removing Soviet missiles if the U.S. would guarantee not to