Why did Mr. Williamson write to Ms. Lewis？A．To notify her of a change in plan for dinner p

Why did Mr Brown think that the man and his wife would stay at home？

A．Because they were late for the last film.

B．Because the cinema was closed.

C．Because they were not sure about the time of the last film.

Why did Mr Sandelius call Gerard Croiset？

A．Because the police couldn't find Carol.

B．Because Carol didn't want to come home.

C．Because Carol couldn't find her way back home.

me realestate. The land alone is worth ￡235,000, and on this land the restaurant is worth more than ￡158, 000. Franco has a very high cash flow with more than ￡ 15,000 going in and outevery month, but not much extra left over at the end of each month. Since there is only alittle left. then he wouldn I t have enough to pay the interest on a loan.

"Why don't you apply for a mortgage？" Mr MacCallan suggested. "The restaurant is good collaeral, isn't it？ So you would easily get a mortgage of ￡ 100, 000." He also suggested a start-up loan that has 0 % interest for the first five years. "Start-up loans are suitable for businesses that need high investment without any strings attached." he explained.

Franco decided to apply for both. Then he would be able to expand the restaurant.

(1) What did Franco want to do？

A. To deposit some money.

B. To save some money.

C. To borrow some money.

(2) What does the financial statement say？

A. The land size.

B. The land value.

C. The land price.

(3) How much are Franco' s expenditures each month？

A. Just less than income.

B. The same as income.

C. More than income.

(4) What did the manager suggest？

A. A mortgage.

B. A loan.

C. Both ‘A' and ‘B'

(5) What will a start-up loan give Franco？

A. No mortgage.

B. Spending money.

C.More interest.

Wilson v Dagnall [1972] 1 QB 509 Court of Appeal (Lord Denning MR, Megaw and Stephenson LJJ) Statute – effective date Facts The plaintiff’s husband was killed in a motor accident in 1969. On 19 March 1970 she commenced proceedings claiming, inter alia, damages under the Fatal Accident Acts. The hearing was on 27 July 1971: the defendant admitted liability and formal judgment was entered on 30 July. On 1 July 1971 the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1971 received the Royal Assent and the Act stipulated that it was to come into force on 1 August 1971. The Act provided (in s4) that, in assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts, no longer was account to be taken of a widow’s prospects of remarriage. As the 21- year- old plaintiff enjoyed such prospects, the judge assessed her damages as though the 1971 Act were already in force. The defendant’s appeal was heard in December 1971. Held (Lord Denning MR dissenting) The judge had been wrong to apply the 1971 Act and the plaintiff’s damages would therefore be reduced to take account of her prospects of remarriage. Megaw LJ: ‘It is natural to feel sympathy for this young widow, as against an anonymous insurance company. But it cannot be proper for a court of law to decide a case in favor of a plaintiff on the basis of sympathy, if the law of the land, as laid down in an Act of Parliament, provides otherwise. Whenever the law is changed by an Act of Parliament, there are likely to be cases which can be regarded as hard cases. That would not have been avoided if, for example, Parliament had provided- as it deliberately did not provide- that the change in the law was to take effect on the date when the Act was passed, 1st July 1971. For in that event the cases decided by the courts in the days or weeks preceding 1st July (instead of, as now, 1st August) could equally have been regarded as hard cases: hard, because they fell so close to the dividing line but on the wrong side of it for the plaintiff concerned. Yet a dividing line there must be. The only question is: what is the dividing line which Parliament has chosen to lay down？ Parliament has unambiguously said that the Act is to come into operation on 1st August 1971. To my mind there is no ambiguity about that nor any doubt as to its effect. It means that Parliament has ordained that up to that date, 1st August 1971, the law is to remain as before. I do not know why Parliament so provided. But that it did so provide is beyond dispute. I should have thought it was also beyond dispute, as an essential part of the unwritten constitutional law of England, by which courts of law are ineluctably bound, that those courts must loyally give effect to what Parliament has provided, and not seek to give effect to what they may think that Parliament ought to have provided. If Parliament has made a mistake, it has full sovereign power to correct the mistake. It follows that in my judgment the learned judge could not lawfully treat s4 of the Act as though it was already in force on 27th July. The judge’s decision was wrong and contrary to law. It ordered the defendant to pay money which, in law, the defendant could not lawfully be ordered to pay to the plaintiff. I do not regard it as relevant that the delivery of the judgment or the drawing up of the order could, as a matter of fact, have been postponed by the judge until 31st July had come and gone and the Act had come into operation.’ Questions 1. How many parts can this case be divided into？ What are they？ 2. Which two judges agreed with the ruling？ Who dissented？ 3. Why did the defendant appeal？ 4. Why did the judges of the Court of Appeal reverse the first ruling？

[A] As information is passed around, important qualifiers are lost. A rumour may start as "I'm not sure if this is true, but I heard that..." Then it evolves into: "I heard that..." Finally it becomes: "Did you know that...？" Even when no one intends to spread falsehoods, they spread. [B] IF YOU Google the phrase "Middle East rumours", the first link that pops up is not, as you might expect, a website propagating conspiracy theories. It is Coca-Cola's website. For several years now the company has struggled to rebut ridiculous rumours about its products. [C] Such rebuttals are unwise, argue Derek Rucker and David Dubois, of the Kellogg School of Management, and Zakary Tormala, of Stanford business school, three psychologists. By restating the rumours, Coke helps to propagate them. Its web page is a magnet for search engines. And people who read rebuttals tend to forget the denial and remember only the rumour, says Mr Rucker. [D] Other companies could learn from this. McDonald's hamburgers have been said to contain worm meat, Procter and Gamble is reputed to have Satanic links and Facebook is rumoured to be shutting down so that its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, can have his life back. All these rumours are utterly false, but the firms in question would be well advised not to bother denying them. [E] In several experiments, Mr Rucker and Mr Dubois planted rumours among undergraduates. They found that with each repetition, scepticism diminished. The rumours themselves did not change; only the likelihood that the students would believe them. These findings were published in a report called "The Failure to Transmit Certainty". [F] For example, some people believe that if you read Coke's Arabic logo backwards, it says: "No Muhammad, No Mecca". Others insist that the company is owned by Jews, or that it bankrollsIsrael. These rumours are one reason why Coke does worse than Pepsi in Arab countries. Yet they are all false, as Coke's website explains in painstaking detail. [G] Instead of denying false rumours, a company should put out a stream of positive messages about itself, reckon Mr Rucker and Mr Dubois. This deprives myths of oxygen and also nudges people to doubt nasty things they may hear about the company in question. 1. ____ à 2. ____ à C à 3. _____ à 4. _____ à 5. _____ à D 1.填空(5分)sequencing 1.

A、He told Mr Bingley about it, and he thought it was best for him.

B、He did not tell Mr Bingley about it, because he thought it was best for Jane.

C、He did not tell Mr Bingley about it, and he was not regretful for what he had done.

D、He did not tell Mr Bingley about it, but he regreted doing so.

A、Mr Darcy

B、Lizzy's uncle

C、Mr Wickham's friends

D、Mr Collins

se in products failing the final quality checks. These checks were carried out in the QC (quality control) laboratory, which tested finished goods products before being released for sale. The product failure rate had risen from 1% of items two years ago to 4% now, and this meant an increase of hundreds of items of output a month which were not sold on to Yaya’s customers. The failed products had no value to the company once they had failed QC as the rework costs were not economic. Because the increase was gradual, it took a while for Mr Janoon to realise that the failure rate had risen.

A thorough review of the main production operation revealed nothing that might explain the increased failure and so attention was focused instead on the QC laboratory. For some years, the QC laboratory at Yaya, managed by Jane Goo, had been marginalised in the company, with its two staff working in a remote laboratory well away from other employees. Operations director Ben Janoon, who designed the internal control systems in Yaya, rarely visited the QC lab because of its remote location. He never asked for information on product failure rates to be reported to him and did not understand the science involved in the QC process. He relied on the two QC staff, Jane Goo and her assistant John Zong, both of whom did have relevant scientific qualifications.

The two QC staff considered themselves low paid. Whilst in theory they reported to Mr Janoon, in practice, they conducted their work with little contact with colleagues. The work was routine and involved testing products against a set of compliance standards. A single signature on a product compliance report was required to pass or fail in QC and these reports were then filed away with no-one else seeing them.

It was eventually established that Jane Goo had found a local buyer to pay her directly for any of Yaya’s products which had failed the QC tests. The increased failure rate had resulted from her signing products as having ‘failed QC’ when, in fact, they had passed. She kept the proceeds from the sales for herself, and also paid her assistant, John Zong, a proportion of the proceeds from the sale of the failed products.

Required:

(a) Explain typical reasons why an internal control system might be ineffective. (5 marks)

(b) Explain the internal control deficiencies that led to the increased product failures at Yaya. (10 marks)

(c) Discuss the general qualities of useful information, stating clearly how they would be of benefit to Mr Janoon, and recommend specific measures which would improve information flow from the QC lab to Mr Janoon. (10 marks)

A、he did not think Jane was really touched by Mr Bingley.

B、he thought Mr Bingley's family did not suit Jane's.

C、he thought Jane lied to Mr Bingley.

D、he did not think Mr Bingley was truly in love with Jane.