MLKs Speech and Its Effect on Local Civil Rights Movement

MLKs Speech and Its Effect on Local Civil Rights Movement The white man won’t hand out integration on a silver platter. The history of the civil rights is often told on the national scale or following well-known figures and direct-action events such as the sit-in campaign and Rosa Parks’ famous stand on a Montgomery bus. More recently, historians have focused their research on the local level, revealing events that are not prominent, but integral to the larger scale history of civil rights in the United States. Although national power determined the â€Å"deliberate speed† of desegregation legislation, local communities determined the actual speed in which they would be enforced. Some communities pressed for immediate social change†¦show more content†¦Following the momentum of the boycott, King founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with the purpose of enabling â€Å"the region’s Negro leaders to plan activities parallel to those of the NAACP.† The first goal of the organization was to register two million new Negro voters before the 1960 presidenti al election and King began the summer of 1958 travelling to spread the message of equality and nonviolence throughout the nation. One week prior to King’s speech in Columbus, his request to meet with President Dwight Eisenhower in order to address the President’s â€Å"recent plea for continued patience† and previous promises â€Å"to meet with Negro leaders† was accepted, and the conference enjoyed moderate media attention. On May 29, 1958, King, along with Lester Granger of the National Urban League, Roy Wilkins of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, shared time with the President to discuss the rights of Negro Americans. The meeting was ultimately unproductive and King immediately assessed the meeting with Eisenhower: â€Å"I think he believes it would be a fine thing to have an integrated society but I think he probably feels that the more you push it, the more tension it will create so you just wait 50 or 100 years and it will work itself out. I don’t think he feels like being a crusader for integration.† Although King was clearly despondent about

Calculation Of Profit And Expenses Of The Company Case Study

Essays on Calculation Of Profit And Expenses Of The Company Case Study ï » ¿Calculation Of Profit And Expenses Of The Company 1) The company’s sales have increased, but this increase is quite less when you see the huge investment that the firm has undertaken to go â€Å"national†. Firm’s other expenses have also increased by a greater proportion than the increase in the sales. As a result, the company’s net income has been turned into net loss. 2) It is clear from expansion that more fixed assets have been acquired. This is financed by borrowing from the bank, and as a result liabilities have increased. However, total current assets have also increased because the firm is holding more inventories now than before. 3) Fixed assets have been acquired by using the external finance techniques such as bank borrowing. This has increased the company’s liabilities. 4) NOPAT: 2008 2009 $87,960 $(95,136) Operating Current Assets: 2008 2009 $1075,400 $1926,802 Operating Current Liabilities: 2008 2009 $281,600 $608,960 Net Working Capital: 2008 2009 $793800 $1317,842 Net Operating Capital: 2008 2009 $1138600 $2257632 5) The free cash flow has decreased by $503,936 as a result of expansion. 6) Free Cash Flow is important to determine the actual cash position of the company after adding back some of expenses that does not incur cash movement such as amortization. Similarly, it takes into account the movement of working capital and hence does reflect how much money the business has in hand from operating activities. 7) Since the profit is in negative the answer to this question will be negative. This means that the business is not covering its WACC and therefore is adding no value to the money invested in the business. 8) This can be a valid argument if the payment terms say that the company has to pay in the given timeframe of say 30 days. If the company fails to honor its commitment then it may face business problems. This can be concluded from the financial statements by calculating the creditor’s turnover ratio. It is calculated by: Average Creditors/Cost of Sales / 365 For this company Average Creditors = 905280 COS/ 365 = 13643.8 Creditor’s Turnover Ratio = 905280/13643.8 = 66 Days This proves that the company is paying way later than 30 days commitment to the creditors. 9) It may be a good ploy for increasing sales, but a lot of external factors need to be considered to make sure that this ploy will work. First of all, the company needs to make sure that the new policy is going to meet its cash cycle that is if its debtors are paying later, then creditors should also be paid later. A company may go bankrupt or short of working capital, if 60 days credit is extended to debtors with creditors asking for 30 days payment. Hence, this factor needs to be considered apart from trustworthiness of the creditor and whether or not the company could afford to invest into the business to make it possible for Rockies Inc. to increase its credit policy. 10) Retained earnings are calculated by subtracting profits from any dividends paid to the shareholders. Many a times, retained earnings are used to pay cumulative stock holders. A decrease in retained earning signifies higher dividends paid to the shareholder and this is what might have happened in the year 2009. 11) 2886,592/ 100037 = $28.85 Book value is dependent on the net assets value of the company , whereas market value is dependent on demand and supply of company’s shares in the market.

Rank of Icici Stock Minds Free Essays

string(228) " 65 66 67 68 69 70 CHANCHAL KANSAL SUBHASIS SAHA PUNAM ANNASO BANDAL SONU SINGHAL RAJESH MAHADEV ANDIRAO PARESH ISHVAR BHAI MITHANI SAMRAT THATIKONDA TWARIT S TARPARA PUNE KOLKATA PUNE DELHI PUNE RAJKOT DELHI BANGALORE 1509405\." Sheet1 RANK 1 2 3 4 PARTICIPANT NAME COLLEGE NITIN GAJANAN MALUSARE JANARDAN INSTITUTE GIRISH MAHESHKUMAR SAVLANI K S BUSINESS SCHOOL PRATEEK GOVILA BIT MESRA PUNE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF KISHAN BHATTAD MANAGEMENT SCIENCES (PUMBA) CITY MUMBAI AHMEDABAD RANCHI PUNE PORTFOLIO 1666999. 9 1666553. 6 1666432. We will write a custom essay sample on Rank of Icici Stock Minds or any similar topic only for you Order Now 5 1662356. 05 TURNOVER 16935103. 38 19998020 19946293. 4 0 % GAIN 11. 13% 5. 67% 9. 36% 0. 00% Basis highest % change in profit compared to the previous day portfolio COMMENTS REMARKS 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 JIGAR B SHAH SHANTI BUSINESS SCHOOL INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT SAGAR CHOUDHURY (IIM) ISHAN ONKAR TRIVEDI NIRMA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT ANIL KUMAR YADAV IMS GHAZIABAD RAVINDER REDDY IIT – MADRAS (MGMT DEPT) JAY PRAKASH MEHTA KANDIVALI EDUCATION SOCIETYÂ   INDIAN INSTITIUTE OF PARV DHIMAN MANAGEMENT(IIM) LALA LAJPATRAI INSTITUTE OF DHIRAJ KUNDANMAL SONI MANAGEMENT KALPESH RAJPUT B. K. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT CHETANA’S INSTITUTE OF ROHAN PRAVIN DHUNDUR MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH PRIYANKA BHIKHABHAI CHAUDHARY INSTITUTE OF PATEL TECHNOLOGY VISHWAKARMA INSTITUTE OF DINOOP HARIDAS NAIR MANAGEMENT PARLE TILAK VIDYALAYA ASSOCIATION INSTITUTE OF VIJAY DALCHAND SOLANKI MANAGEMENT(PTVAIMS) AHMEDABAD ROHTAK AHMEDABAD DELHI CHENNAI MUMBAI KOLKATA MUMBAI AHMEDABAD MUMBAI GANDHINAGAR PUNE 1633101. 34 1630987. 35 1624240. 56 1607499. 08 1603541. 45 1592069. 45 1587710. 2 1583445. 77 1577859. 05 1571068. 17 1569750 1569228. 22 0877028. 01 19601921. 9 18727524. 25 19529775. 94 13647528. 25 17734802. 6 17597289. 8 13905246. 26 8914119. 7 10081802. 57 880898 18632832. 41 11. 75% Mobile Winner – 14. 03. 13 4. 13% 8. 37% -2. 13% 3. 39% 2. 62% 4. 80% 5. 41% 3. 26% 4. 74% 4. 72% 5. 41% 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 MUMBAI 1568526. 09 1558883. 62 1551591. 65 1551477. 36 1548478. 45 1544469. 5 1542588. 9 1540635. 82 1538577. 6 1536670. 52 1536123. 59 1533144. 14 153180 9. 2 9199916 19665170. 27 19578787. 6 9171863. 97 10972784 16540805. 5 3318021. 6955868. 33 3697253. 9 10295002. 38 18981106. 07 17478175. 1 13408401. 9 5. 97% 2. 78% 2. 33% 3. 31% 1. 95% 2. 96% 3. 11% 3. 28% 4. 15% 2. 62% 1. 97% 1. 98% 2. 12% JAY VITTHALBHAI SANGANI MARVADI INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT RAJKOT SOM LALIT INSTITUTE OF KUSHAL AMIT PARIKH AHMEDABAD MANAGEMENT BIJAL BHARATH SELARKA SRM SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT CHENNAI DHAVAL RAJENDRA DESAI MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST (MET) MUMBAI PARIN MARU MUMBAI KJ SOMAYA KETAN POPATBHAI S K PATEL INSTITUTE OF DHAMELIYA MANAGEMENT GANDHINAGAR RONAK JAYSUKH SODHA N. L. DALMIYA COLLEGE MUMBAI VISHWA VISHWANI SCHOOL OF PREM KUMAR HYDERABAD BUSINESS PRARTHANA CHANDAR UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF AMIN BUSINESS MUMBAI SYMBIOSIS COLLEGE OF ARTS GEORGE PARAPUZHA JOB COMMERCE PUNE LALSINGH SANGRAMSINGH S. B PATIL INSTITUTE OF RAJPUT PUNE MANAGEMENT SUDEEPTA SARMA IILM INSTITUTE FOR HIGHER BORUAH DELHI EDUCATION (IILM ) INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH (IMDR) AGNEL CHARITIES AGNEL SEVA SANGHA’S FR. C. RODRIGUES INST. OF MANAGEMENT. STUDIES RUSTOMEJEE BUSINESS SCHOOL DAYANANDA SAGAR ACEDEMY OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT MUMBAI INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH GURU NANAK INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES (GNIMS) INDIAN INSTITUTE OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (IIKM) AMITY GLOBAL BUSINESS SCHOOL ACCURATE BUSINESS SCHOOL ATHARVA SCHOOL OF BUSINESS NSTITUTEÂ   OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT- INSTITUTE OF FINANCIAL MARKETS (ITM-IFM) RAWAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT KIRLOSKAR INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED MANAGEMENT STUDIES CITY COLLEGE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PARUL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT INDIAN INSTITIUT OF MANAGEMENT(IIM) MEENAKSHI SUNDARAJAN SCHOOL OF MGMT JAIPURIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES H. K. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, STUDIES RESEARCH, JOGESHWARI CHRIST COLLEGE 30 DIVYA RANI SINGH PUNE 1530024. 8 1504035. 81 1. 22% 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NIKHITA VINAY RANE BHAUMIK KIRTIKUMAR MEHTA SANTOSH KUMAR ANAND PRAKASH YADAV HARMEET HARBINDER ALAG PRAVEEN GANESAN SASANK BANDARUPALLI MD MOHSIN KHAN SNEHAL SHIVAJI SHINDE MUMBAI MUMBAI BANGALORE MUMBAI MUMBAI CHENNAI HYDERABAD DELHI MUMBAI 1529786. 95 1528691. 21 1526535. 5 1526029. 7 1525450 1523362. 3 1522990. 93 1522771. 22 1522282. 7 1514444. 46 0 948645. 9 1174189. 5 0 19633466. 4 7175048. 23 15763374. 15 11326878. 5 1. 99% 0. 00% 1. 83% 2. 37% 2. 29% 1. 56% 1. 53% 0. 94% 0. 54% 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 SAURAV SHARMA PARVEEN GARG ARPAN KUMAR DAS MADHU SUDAN MC SURENDRA BABU GADWALA DIPAK RASIKBHAI KATHROTIYA SHIVANK GOEL DEVIKA RAJU ASHISH RANA BHAVESH HARISH AGARWAL SASWATA GHOSH RAVIPRAKASH RAMSNEHI PRASAD MILAN A THAKKAR NAVEEN KUMAR BHATNAGAR GOVIND PRATAP SINGH MERTIYA BONY KURIAN PUNNOOSE ANSHUL BANSAL ABHISHEK GOYAL SHAIKH MOHD RAMEEZ MUKHTAR KUSHALAPPA B K JABEZ E DANIEL HARDIC VORA VAISAKH E J MUMBAI DELHI PUNE BANGALORE KANPUR BARODA SHILLONG CHENNAI DELHI MUMBAI BANGALORE 1520505. 07 1517381. 9 1516829. 38 1516420. 05 1516038. 59 1515656. 75 1515339. 65 1515279. 58 1515096. 5 1513370. 8 1513242 1513070. 33 1512952. 06 1512904. 4 1512802. 4 1512655. 28 1512567. 22 1512270 1635277. 67 2360833. 43 3211287. 58 2450275. 45 2141875. 73 17414304. 45 0 2676943. 84 0 13356288. 94 99393 6559817. 75 18790067. 43 0 0 9150470. 72 17570914 0 1. 77% 0. 97% 1. 12% 1. 09% 1. 15% 0. 57% 0. 34% 0. 95% 1. 94% 0. 64% 0. 76% 0. 91% -8. 71% 2. 66% 1. 22% 1. 67% 1. 03% 2. 11% IIPM AHMEDABAD PUNE AMITY GLOBAL BUSINESS SCHOOL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES DEHRADUN (IMS) JK BUSINESS SCHOOL AMITY GLOBAL BUSINESS SCHOOL IIMB MAHARISHI ARVIND INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT JSPM’S ABACUS INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT BNMIT BISHOP HEBER COLLEGE IEIBS AKADEMIA REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT MAHARASHTRA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGIES-SCHOOL OF TELECOM (MIT SOT) GLOBSYN TECHNOLOGIES LTD JAYWANTRAO SAWANT INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH SKYLINE BUSINESS SCHOOL CAMP EDUCATION SOCIETY (INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT) ATMIYA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING MANAGMENT (IIPM, CHATTARPUR) INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT EXCELLENCE DELHI CHENNAI BANGALORE JAIPUR 58 59 60 61 62 PUNE BANGALORE TRICHY MUMBAI BANGALORE 1512104. 65 1511085 1509935 1509755. 86 1509406. 55 0 0 0 2709639. 3 0 1. 10% 0. 91% 0. 99% 2. 31% 1. 00% 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 CHANCHAL KANSAL SUBHASIS SAHA PUNAM ANNASO BANDAL SONU SINGHAL RAJESH MAHADEV ANDIRAO PARESH ISHVAR BHAI MITHANI SAMRAT THATIKONDA TWARIT S TARPARA PUNE KOLKATA PUNE DELHI PUNE RAJKOT DELHI BANGALORE 1509405. 94 1509016. 5 1508847 1508597. 32 1508523 1507986. 75 1507803. 6 1507612 1000214. 4 0 0 4107663. 24 0 0 2278392. 99 119175 1. 35% 1. 33% 0. 71% 0. 57% 1. 07% 0. 43% 0. 93% 0. 85% Page 1 Sheet1 71 72 73 74 75 76 POOJA BALU VETAL RAJESH KUMAR PARAG M LATHIYA ASHUTOSH SINGH ARJUN M MAYANK SINHA ST. MIRA’S COLLEGE FOR GIRLS SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT STUDIES (SCMS) LDRP BENGAL INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS STUDIES(BIBS) ST. JOSEPH’S INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AMITY UNIVERSITY B. P. PODDAR INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY (BPPIMT) CMS BUSINESS SCHOOL INDIRA INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT FUTURE BUSINESS SCHOOL GREAT LAKES INSTITUTE OF MGMT PUNE KOCHI GANDHINAGAR KOLKATA TRICHY GURGAON 1507374. 25 1507298. 7 1507284. 66 1506689. 12 1506507 1506000 632126. 6 811641 4166933. 75 137269. 44 1051965 334500 0. 49% 0. 49% 0. 78% 0. 65% 0. 49% 0. 52% 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 SANJANA SEN RAHUL NICHANAMETTLA PRATHAMESH DHARMIK MANDALE POOJA SETHI SANTHOSH KUMAR S SUDHANSHU KESHAV MOURYA ANURAG GUPTA RAM MILAN KANNUJIA KOLKATA BANGALORE MUMBAI KOLKATA CHENNAI MUMBAI JALANDHAR DELHI KOLKATA PUNE KOLHAPUR AHMEDABAD KOLKATA DELHI PUNE JALANDHAR TRICHY AHMEDABAD VISNAGAR JAIPUR 1505896. 5 1505846. 1505772 1505472. 76 1505448. 66 1505371 1505182. 5 1505154. 7 1504923. 27 1504847 1504450. 94 1504090. 2 1503889. 46 1502875 1502740. 5 1502332 1502277 1502240. 76 1501853. 5 1501507. 86 1501469. 41 1501321 15 01252. 75 1501160 1501127. 4 1501077. 05 1500834. 35 1500709. 1 1500515 0 510517. 1 0 243199 16911647. 35 0 0 0 0 1478127. 6 0 16151721. 7 498939. 5 0 714160 450073. 2 0 17700875. 4 0 448070. 76 1047920. 95 0 51487. 28 418670 1032958. 65 0 0 415179. 6 0 0. 33% 0. 33% 0. 61% 0. 57% 0. 23% 0. 52% 1. 33% 0. 60% 0. 54% 0. 12% 0. 00% 0. 87% 0. 81% 0. 48% 0. 15% 0. 08% 0. 13% 1. 41% 0. 64% 0. 10% 1. 34% 0. 12% 0. 12% 0. 08% -0. 08% 0. 38% 0. 03% 0. 08% 0. 03% SHRI VISHVESARIYA IMS LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY GAUTAM BUDDHA UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SUKANTA SAHA BUSINESS STUDIES (IIBS) SADHU VASVANI INSTITUTE OF BHUMIKA NIRMAL SONI MANAGEMENT (SVIMS) SANJAY GHODAWAT INSTITUTE SOURABH INANI (SEMINAR II) VARSHIT BIPINBHAI DOSHI NRIMB AMINUR RAHAMAN GAZI NSHM BUSINESS SCHOOL(NBS) ASIA PACIFIC INSTITUTE OF RENU YADAV MANAGEMENT NASIRUDDIN FAKRUDDIN DR. D. Y. PATIL INSTITUTE OF SHAIKH ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY APEEJAY INSTITUTE OF ANU THANGRIA MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL CAMPUS MAREDDY INDIAN INSTITIUT OF MARKANDEYULU MANAGEMENT(IIM) INDIAN INSTITIUT OF SIDDHARTH M MANAGEMENT(IIM) NARESH DAHYABHAI VISNAGAR INSTITUTE OF PRAJAPATI MANAGEMENT MEGHA AGARWAL BANASTHALI VIDYAPITH CAMPUS JAY PRAKASH CHAUDHARY OXFORD COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT BANGALORE LOKESH DURGESH GHOSAL ITM DOMBIVLI MUMBAI SRN ADARSH COLLEGE OF ASHISH KUMAR MISHRA BANGALORE MANAGEMENT ASHWINI DEVARAJAM SANKA MUMBAI VIVA COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT AMANDEEP SINGH MAINI DELHI INSTITUTE(IMI) RAJ KUMAR GOYAL INSTITUTE FOR ABHISHEK RAI DELHI TECHNOLOGY (RKGIT) VISHAL JALHOTRA DEHRADUN GRAPHIC ERAÂ   UNIVERSITY MONICA SATISH SHARMA ICL COMMERCE COLLEGE VASHI MUMBAI NANDALAL M SIVADAS AMRITA COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT BANGALORE BABU BANARASI DAS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT VIDYALANKAR INSTITUTE OF SUSHMA VIJAY GHADGE MANAGEMENT LALIT SONI ST. KABIR INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT NITU SINHA MERI INSTITUTE MONICA ALLURI NSB KENGUA ASHUTOSH ICFAI BUSINESS SCHOO L(IBS) DILIP MADHUBHAI CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDIES PRAJAPATI (CMS) SUJITH S KURUP RAI BUSINESS SCHOOL INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS PIYUSH DILIP KHESE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH (IBMR) TUSHAR GULATI ICFAI BUSINESS SCHOO L(IBS) JAYDEEP PRATAPRAI INDIAN EDUCATION SOCIETY RATHOD INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT(IESIMS) INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF AVIJIT SAHA BUSINESS JAGANATH SUBRAMANIAN HYDERABAD BUSINESS SCHOOL SOUMYA SUKHMAY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHATTERJEE COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT (NICM) KALPESH KAILASH SHARMA MDI PRIYANT RAMESHBHAI LADANI OXFORD COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT YASH YOGESHBHAI SHAH K S BUSINESS SCHOOL 2 DR. GAUR HARI SINGHANIA INSTITUTE PUSHPINDER SINGH PURI OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT SASIKANTH BAPATLA (IIM) ABHISHEK MADASSERY FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE ASHOK TECHNOLOGY(FISAT) RIZVI INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT KARAN KIRTI DOSHI STUDIES R. A. PODAR INSTITUTE OF AKSHIT BAJ MANAGEMENT ACHARYA’S BANGALORE BUSINESS SURI SAI SRIKANTH SCHOOL INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING AND VIREN PARMAR MANAGEMENT(IIPM) SREE NARAYAN GURUKULAM SHAHANAS PA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING FABEESH MOHAMED IIPM, KOCHI G SANDEEP GANDHIKOTA BUSINESS SCHOOL DEEPAK HEDDA GARDEN CITY COLLEGE KOLHAPUR INSTITUTE OF VENUGOPAL LALIT DAVDA TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS AND SAISMITA DALAI COMPUTER STUDIES(IBCS ) SOUMITRA KUMAR INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING MANDAL MANAGEMENT(IIPM) DIPTI DINESH NADKARNI IEIBS AKADEMIA BLESSINA JEBARAJ JEPPIAR ENGINEER COLLEGE SYMBIOSIS INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS STUTI BANSAL MANAGEMENT (SIBM) INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING P SUNIL KUMAR MANAGEMENT(IIPM) JAYAMUKHI INSTITUTE OF GOUTHAM BIJJALA TECHNOLOGICAL SCIENCES DEBASISH BAJ ITM BUSINESS SCHOOL ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF ANIRUDH MAHESH SANGHI MANAGEMENT VIVEK AGARWALA LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY VELS INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS DASARATHY GANESAN ADMINISTRATION GANESH R NIT DEEPMALA YADAV 1 06 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 LUCKNOW MUMBAI AHMEDABAD DELHI BANGALORE KOLKATA AHMEDABAD CHENNAI PUNE HYDERABAD MUMBAI KOLKATA HYDERABAD AHMEDABAD DELHI BANGALORE AHMEDABAD KANPUR KOZHIKODE KOCHI MUMBAI JAIPUR BANGALORE PUNE KOCHI KOCHI HYDERABAD BANGALORE KOLHAPUR BHUBANESHWAR BHUBANESHWAR MUMBAI CHENNAI PUNE HYDERABAD WARANGAL WARANGAL MUMBAI JALANDHAR CHENNAI TRICHY 1500416. 1500306. 63 1500152. 85 1500148 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 Page 2 0 4957494. 14 461163. 8 1164534 0. 04% 0. 75% 0. 01% 0. 59% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 0 0% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% Sheet1 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 PREEYAM HIMANSHU TOLIA GOURAV TYAGI INDRAJEET SARKAR MEVISH PANCHAL PIYUSH MANOJ MODHSARAF CHANDNI JITENDRABHAI ZAVERI ABHYUDAY SINGH CHAUHAN FAIZAN KHAN KARTHIK HARIHARAN PRADEEP V SATENDER SINGH RAWAT PRAMOD AGRAWAL HARSH RANJAN ANIRBAN TARUN HAZRA KUNWAR VIKRAM SINGH BHAVIK JAGDISHBHAI BHAVSAR RAHUL VIJAYAKUMAR PRATIK MAHENDRA MANANI BHAGYASHREE SURESH PATIL SAINATH NIVLAKAR VISHAL SINGH JOHNSON BANDI ANKIT ANAND SHUBHAM JAIN ANUBHAV SINGH PADALIYA DHAVAL DEEPCHAND RADHYASHYAM GUPTA AMRITA MAZUMDAR YOGESH HARSHADBHAI PATEL SUJIT P ANUTOSH KUMAR AJEET PRATAP KHANDE NIKET CHANDAK SATYAJIT MAHAPATRO MANJUNATH RA SHREY ARORA GAURAV KAMBLE JOYDEEP DEY PANKAJ RAMESH RAI SURAJ SANJAY TAMHANE RADHE NARAYANDAS RATHI PRANAY VIJETA MUKESHKUMAR GUPTA KISHANKUMAR CHAUDHARY RAJEN DER AGGARWAL SAMBHAV GUPTA RAJIV TARASHANKAR MAURYA PATHIK ASHOK DOSHI SACHIN DADABHAU ARGADE NIKUNJKUMAR BIPINCHANDRA GOR ARVIND SINGH NABA KUMAR MEDHI AFSAR TANWEER VIVA COLLEGE OF ARTS,COMMERCE AND SCIENCE ITS GHAZIABAD INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT BHARTIVIDYAPEETH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT ALKESH DINESH MODI IMS MUMBAI GHAZIABAD KOLKATA MUMBAI MUMBAI 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1500000 1499980. 58 1499898. 8 1499840. 31 1499298. 49 1499240 1498978. 6 1498975. 44 1498765. 1 1498463. 91 1498376. 77 1497879. 7 1497736 1497537. 85 1497026. 1 1496824. 5 1496650 1496525. 13 1496018. 95 1495073. 73 1493679. 6 1491854. 05 1490459 1489680 1487377. 61 1485605. 25 1484849 1483542. 5 1481977. 63 1480659. 65 1480337. 56 1480059. 8 1478627. 88 1478035. 91 1477020. 08 1476154. 24 1475551. 17 1474566. 66 1458569. 63 1455800 1450658. 24 1444595 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 00 % 0. 48% -0. 01% 0. 13% -0. 05% 1. 24% 0. 00% 0. 18% 0. 08% -0. 11% 0. 54% 0. 54% 0. 68% 0. 00% 0. 50% -0. 23% 0. 73% -0. 27% 0. 16% 0. 7% -0. 04% -0. 35% 0. 13% 0. 88% -0. 38% 0. 14% 0. 12% 0. 77% -2. 62% -1. 70% 0. 95% 0. 69% 0. 23% 2. 83% -0. 67% -4. 74% -0. 41% 1. 31% -2. 50% -3. 29% -3. 72% RAJKOT R K UNIVERSITY DHARMSINGH DESAI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT(DDIT) NADIAD NARSEEMONJI INSTITUTE OF MUMBAI MANAGEMENT STUDIES (NMIMS) INDIAN INSTITIUT OF INDORE MANAGEMENT(IIM ) VELLORE INSTITUTE OF CHENNAI MANAGEMENT (VIT) GLA UNIVERSITY II MATHURA GLA UNIVERSITY I MATHURA JAIPUR GYANVIHAR INSTITUTE DY PATIL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT MUMBAI BELAPUR SWAMI VIVEKANAND INSTITUTE OF MUMBAI MANAGEMENT STUDIES CHIMANBHAI INSTITUTE OF AHMEDABAD MANAGEMENT CRESENT BUSINESS SCHOOL (B. S. ABDUR RAHMAN UNIVERSITY) CHENNAI ICFAI BUSINESS SCHOOL SANJAY GHODAWAT INSTITUTE ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE OF INDIA (EDI) JAIPURIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY(NIT) SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, KIIT UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF INFOMATICS MANAGEMENT (IIIM ) TRINITY INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES NEW DELHI INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT (NDIM) GAHLOT INSTITUTE HERITAGE GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS GANPAT UNIVERSITY XAVIER INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT BIFM SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION RESEARCH LYYOD INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT INDIRA COLLEGE FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES (FMS) MS RAMAIAH COLLEGE INSTITUTE OF RURAL MANAGEMENT(IRM) ADITYA COLLEGE NSHM BUSINESS SCHOOL(NBS) UNITED BUSINESS SCHOOL SIES COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT, NERUL D Y PATIL GREATER NOIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GNVS INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT S V INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT(IIM) LUCKNOW AMITY BUSINESS SCHOOL DR. G D POL FOUNDATION YMT COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT FLAME BUSINESS SCHOOL MUMBAI KOLHAPUR AHMEDABAD JAIPUR WARANGAL BHUBANESHWAR JAIPUR DELHI DELHI MUMBAI KOLKATA AHMEDABAD BHUBANESHWAR DELHI DELHI PUNE DELHI BANGALORE JAIPUR MUMBAI DURGAPUR AHMEDABAD MUMBAI PUNE DELHI MUMBAI KADI DELHI AHMEDABAD MUMBAI PUNE 140773. 02 0 469778. 52 5920537. 72 278734. 9 1516500 0 1806549. 85 603598. 3 3727765. 43 9780 0 1359144. 05 0 427764 0 4693020. 75 4546906. 55 293725 148376. 1 2361056. 9 0 0 6257722. 15 0 0 664855. 8 24198 15104297. 55 14073842. 49 6103274. 4 10377288. 23 14504753. 51 7697288. 85 1796680. 35 19766905. 12 1469829. 15 6301258. 4 0 1486542. 2 15548000 MODERN COLLEGE PUNE NARSEEMONJI INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES HYDERABAD LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY JALANDHAR INDIAN INSTITUTE OF FOREIGN TRADE KOLKATA – IIFT XISS- XAVIER INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RANCHI SMT. HIRABEN NANAVATI INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH FOR WOMEN AMRITA SCHOOL OF BUSINESS SANKLP BZ COLLEGE INDIAN INSTITIUT OF MANAGEMENT(IIM) JAGANNATH INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES (JIMS) VIVA COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT JAMNALAL BAJAJ INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES RAJAGIRI SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT ST FRANCIS INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT MODERN INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTRE (JECRC) SYDENHAM INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 NEHA ANIL SONAWANE ASHIS KUMAR NAYAK ANKUR HANUMANDASJI LOYA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY PV ASHISH VATS NILESH KALOJI PATIL CHAITANYA GANDHI ASHISH M THOMAS SAVIO IGNATIUS PEREIRA PUNE COIMBATORE PUNE BANGALORE DELHI MUMBAI MUMBAI KOCHI MUMBAI 1443019. 28 1438403. 49 1421968. 3 1403592. 6 1387933. 23 1382846. 1 1347535. 19 1315017. 23 1232887. 18 7221815. 06 6706791. 4 7983803. 6 15200000 17918166. 91 15326224 18887715. 9 14959391. 89 18177223. 5 -3. 67% -3. 27% -1. 88% -3. 44% -9. 27% -11. 30% -13. 48% - 13. 75% -12. 7% Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 13-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 13-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 13-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 14-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 13-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 13-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 14-Mar2013 Disqualified NEHAL MEHUL DOSHI PUNE 2158899. 67 681523032. 99 30. 27% Disqualified INDU RAJ SHARMA JAIPUR 1746172. 62 136730223. 38 3. 01% Disqualified PARIN JAYESH JAIN MUMBAI 1689359. 21 29836586. 33 5. 38% Disqualified MRINAL AGRAWAL ICFAI BUSINESS SCHOOL GURGAON 1652256. 13 1019418. 73 9. 76% Disqualified DIPEN GIRISHBHAI DESAI SJPIM AHMEDABAD 1638720. 53 38609002. 49 5. 92% Disqualified KRATIKA KAPOOR BANASTHALI VIDYAPITH CAMPUS BANASTHALI 1602585. 74 174113219. 86 4. 03% Disqualified AKASH SINGHAL IILM DELHI DELHI 1595289. 76 Page 3 20201491. 1 0. 81% Sheet1 LAL BAHADUR SHASTR I INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT DELHI Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 14-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 13-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 13-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 13-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 13-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 rore on 13-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 14-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 13-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 13-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 13-Mar2013 Disqualified as Turnover exceeded 2 crore on 13-Mar2013 Disqualified SURBHI BEGWANI 1579115. 33 20629835. 15 2. 46% Disqualified HIMANSHU SHEKHAR BIT MESRA KOLKATA 1548771. 65 85329123. 21 -3. 35% Disqualified SANDEEP KUMAR INDIAN INSTITUTE OF FOREIGN TRADE DELHI (IIFT) 1513222. 8 44599450. 3 8. 38% Disqualified RAHUL SHYAMKUMAR JAIN ICFAI BUSINESS SCHOOL PUNE 1508190. 05 61504026. 95 -6. 39% Disqualifi ed ARUN K IIT – MADRAS ENGG. DEPT CHENNAI 1501859. 94 57156690. 7 -2. 77% Disqualified DEEPANKAR KSHITIZ EMPI BUSINESS SCHOOL NALANDA INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES DELHI 1497135. 03 69303860. 97 -2. 90% Disqualified SHEIKH HOSSAIN KOLKATA 1477135. 35 24163113. 25 -1. 52% Disqualified KUNTAL DEVESH DAVE SAL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AHMEDABAD 1447490 29854052. 5 -6. 76% Disqualified GOBIN RANA SONA COLLEGE OF MANAGMENT INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY(IMT) SALEM 1444626. 85 37832292. 25 -1. 46% Disqualified TUSHAR SHARMA MANMOHAN SINGH SIKARWAR GHAZIABAD 1380792. 05 40439282. 21 -3. 78% Disqualified ICFAI BUSINESS SCHOO L(IBS) AHMEDABAD 1064207. 96 111815542. 74 -21. 15% Page 4 How to cite Rank of Icici Stock Minds, Essay examples

Program Administering Certain Supplements â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Program Administering Certain Supplements? Answer: Introducation In the case study the Essendon Football Club has been held liable for the health issues of the participants in the Australian football league season. One of the footballers Nahin Meye has suffered health issues along with his three-year old daughter due to the supplement program which has been arranged by is in the Football Club. It is a case of negligence by the football club where they have failed to satisfy the duty of care and breach their duty towards their football players along with the Nathan and her three years old daughter. The breach of duty of care has been stated in the case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson where the plane team has gone for having a beer along with a friend for the defendant is providing the customer services by serving foods. When the defendant has served a beer bottle to the plant, she has found the compost Snail in the bottle which makes her feels ill due to having some beer. In this case, the plaintiff has claimed compensation due to the breach of duty of c are by the defendant while he is serving the customers on duty. Therefore, the service provider has failed to satisfy the terms of duty of care and a breach of duty has occurred in this case. According to the toddler, the negligence establishes the terms where the reach of the duty of care occurs and meet damages to the innocent party. Due to the negligence, any injuries or loss of property or any damage would be offered by the person who fails to provide the duty of care and which the terms. The law of tort as provided the statutory fact for the negligence only establishes where duties of care have failed to perform and the breach has occurred. A breach of duty of care has occurred due to the negligence in the case of Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012][1] where the court has found that the defendant has performed maid agency where the plaintiff has been damaged therefore while providing services to the plenty he has reached the duty of care. While in a recent case D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017][2] the plaintiff has mentioned in the court that due to the breach of the duty of care where he suffered damages and injuries due to the negligence of the duty of care by the defendant. The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017[3]] is another case where due to the negligence the defendant has failed to satisfy the plaintiff with the duty of care where the beach has occurred. The plaintiff has claimed the compensation for the injuries the court has audited for the penalties for breach the duty of care. While in the case of Stokes v House With No Steps [2016] is one of the significant cases of breach of the duty of care where the plaintiff has suffered several injuries due to the negligence by the defendant on the workplace. While the defendant is on the duty of care he has failed to provide appropriate duty towards a disabled person. Therefore, the plaintiff wh o is disabled has got injuries by the defendant before the court has been authored to provide the compensation for the damages of the plaintiff due to the injuries[4]. According to the tort law when our duty of care has failed to provide according to the terms then the Civil liability Acts has made the provisions for the support person who has been injured or damaged of the property. Due to the beach of duty of care then it will help to provide to clean the compensation and take the legal precaution against the damage by the defendant. In the case of Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999][5] the Civil liability act has provided the legal protection and precaution against the negligence which has occurred due to the dissatisfied the terms of duty of care where the breach has occurred. When a person is on the providing the services, therefore it is the duty of them that they will provide every service of duty of care towards the other person who is supposed to have the duty of care. Therefore according to the case study, the football club has found liable for the breach of the duties and other health issues because they have arranged the supplement program and participation of the footballers where they have been affected. Due to the negligence of the Essendon Football Club, the footballers have suffered the loss of sponsorship, loss of reputation, loss of income and emotional distress where they have been affected by such damages and also make the effects in their career. Now it is important to establish the terms of dissatisfaction of duty of care for the Essendon Football Club have been found liable for such act of breach of duty of care. Application Negligence is only identified when there is a breach duty of care of the defendant according to the law of tort. It is important to establish the facts of negligence where the defendant owned the duty of care towards plaintiff. It is defined when the exercise of acts has been failed due to the appropriate and ethical rules of specific circumstances then the law of tort has defined the term of negligence. The defendant must own the duty of care and if they got failed to provide such therefore it will make the negligence towards the plaintiff and must cause potential harm to the person or damage of any property. When the plaintiff has affected with any loss or any damage or any injuries due to the negligence by the defendant, then he has the right to claim the damage amount of the compensation due to the loss or injury by the negligence e of the defendant. It is also important to mention that the defendant is bound to pay the compensation if the plaintiff has sued him for the claimant of compensation. The loss of damage can be identified as physical injury harm of private property or any psychiatric illness or the economic loss. There are some essential terms of breach of care where the defendant is bound to do the duties and if the breach has a cause, then it will be caused by proximate causes and damages. The duty of care It is the ultimate terms in the law of torts where the negligence is caused due to the failure of such duty. Now it is important to establish the facts where the defendant must own the duty of care towards the plaintiff. A recognised and valid relation is needed to establish where the defendant is bound to follow such duty of care while he is serving the duty of care to the plaintiff. Now it is necessary that the defendant must determine every duty of care which is required to establish such terms. In the duty of care, it is necessary for the person who must serve the duties under some circumstances towards the plaintiff. Therefore when the negligent has establishes then the court was bound to establish the facts and relation of duty of care between the plaintiff and defendant[6]. As an example of duty of care is when the defendant is driving a truck, loaded with vegetables and if it has struck with a child then at that situation he owns the duty of care towards the child. Now it is important to take care of the child and a duty of care when that person has loaded the truck with vegetables. The duty of care is required for the person a reasonable duty of care. Here according to the terms of the duty of care, a relationship establishes between that person who owns the duty and the child who is standing near the truck may suffer any injury[7]. A reasonable duty is required to own the duty of care and the court will find the relationship between the child and the defendant. Here according to the scenario, the defendant is on his property where he has no knowledge about the child who is standing near the vegetable loaded truck and the child has trespass the property. Therefore if any injury or damage that was caused by the defendant, then the court must find the f acts of relationship where it is important to prove the facts where the defendant has owned the duty of care or not towards that child[8]. The Breach of duty of Care The breach of duty of care only occurs when the defendant has failed to satisfy the terms of the duty of care and the cause injury or damages due to the negligence by the defendant. Therefore the duty of care must be owned by the defendant where the breach has established. Most of the situation the duty of care is breached by the defendant where they have the knowledge of the negligence which is the substantial clause or risk or loss to the plaintiff. Therefore due to the failure of the duty of care the substantial risk has occurred and the loss has found which is the breach of care according to the law of tort[9]. McHale v Watson [1966][10] is one of the famous cares of negligence where the court has found that the defendant established a standard duty of care towards the plaintiff. It has been found that a nine years old child has been hurt forcefully by a 12 years old girl while they are playing in a park. Now due to the hurt, the child has been blinded by her one eye. In this case the court has found such facts that the child has been hurt forcefully, but she has no knowledge that it will make harms for the child which cause her blind. The court has also added the facts where they mentioned that the child is not cross the stage of development where she was on the duty of care[11]. The cause, in fact is another term of negligence where it is necessary for the plaintiff that they must prove the duty of care which has been owned by the defendant. It has established the facts where the plaintiff is bound to define the fact that if the defendant is liable for the damages due to the involvement in the situation. Now according to the case scenario while the defendant is loading the truck which loaded with vegetables and the child has trespass in that property where the defendant has stopped his action due to the presence of the child. Now, it is an important fact that due to the instant action by the defendant to take precaution and not moving the vegetable loaded truck is not does any harm to the child The Proximate Cause is another term in the negligence where it makes the important terms which has caused due to the actual cause of injury or damages by the defendant to the plaintiff[12]. If it has been proved that the damage is occurred due to the damage and another scope of risks, then it will be difficult for the plaintiff to prove the liabilities of the defendant in the duty of care where the risk or loss has been placed. Therefore any harm or injury has occurred due to the action of the defendant then it is necessary that the plaintiff will only hold liable the defendant for that only clause of injuries or damages[13]. Damages are important which has been occurred for the negligence by the defendant. The damage could be identified by the defendant where the damage could be an injury, loss, harm. If the defendant is found that due to the action of the defendant the breach of the duty of care has occurred then the pecuniary injury will be identified towards the plaintiff and it makes the cause of damage. Sometimes the court as found that the damage has occurred when by the defendant by mistakenly then the plaintiff is bound to prove the harm of the plaintiff. The damage which has been in this case by the defendant towards the plaintiff can be affected as physical, economic or both which make the loss of personal injury or reputational damages which are the part of the negligence. Here it is important to prove such area of negligence where the defendant held liable for the damages and which cause due to the negligence of the duty or care. In most of the cases, the damages have been claimed through the capital amount. Where the plaintiff found that due the negligence of the defendant he or she has suffered the loss which could be economic loss, then the plaintiff has the right to claim the compensation for the damages which have been caused by the defendant[14]. Now according to the scenario of the case study, Essendon Football Club has engaged a program of administering certain supplement to its professional athletes where the football club has been engaged in the world anti-doping authoritys requirements. Now due to the failure of the authority of the football club, the players have been suffered the loss of sponsorships, loss of income, emotional distress and loss of reputation. Therefore due to the breach of the occupational health and safety laws in Victoria, the court has fined $200,000 as the compensation of the beach of Duty. Now, one of the players of them Nathan Howlett-Murray has claimed several allegations against the Essendon Football Club who has been found liable due to the health issue of him and her three years old daughter. Now he has claimed that the Essendon Football Club authorities have been breached their duty of care towards their players and he must provide the compensation where the damage has been done[15]. Conclusion Therefore the conclusion has been identified in this case that the Essendon Football Club authorities have breached their duty which has caused them to provide the damages as a penalty to the plaintiff who has suffered the damages where Nathan Howlett-Murray and her daughter who have suffered from the health issues[16]. Reference Atkin, L., 1932. Donoghue v Stevenson. AC, 562, p.580. D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017] Dobbs, D.B., 2001. The law of torts (Vol. 2). West Group. Donoghue vs. Stevenson Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1). Gray, A., 2016. Liability of police in negligence: a comparative analysis. Tort Law Review, 24(1), pp.34-62. Greenfield, S., 2016. Legal Cultures and the Regulation of Coaching Practice: Different Jurisdictions, Different Approaches?.Staps, (4), pp.87-96. Levy, N.M., Golden, M.M. and Sacks, L., 2016.Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses(Vol. 1). California Torts. McHALE v. WATSON [1966] HCA 13; (1966) 115 CLR 199 Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999) Stewart, P. and Stuhmcke, A., 2014. High Court Negligence Cases 200010. Stokes v House With No Steps [2016] Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] 246 CLR 182 The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017] Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity [1] Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] 246 CLR 182 [2] D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017] [3] The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017] [4] Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1). [5] Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999) [6] Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity [7] Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity [8] Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1). [9] Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1). [10] McHALE v. WATSON [1966] HCA 13; (1966) 115 CLR 199 [11] Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1). [12] Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity [13] Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1). [14] Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity [15] Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1). [16] Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity