Shakespeare
“FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT 1 [100 Marks] Read the extract below and answer ALL the questions that follow The internet didn’t kill Blockbuster, the company did it to itself. The video-rental company Blockbuster was at its peak in 2004. They survived the change from VHS to DVD but failed to innovate into a market that allowed for delivery (much less streaming). While Netflix was shipping out DVD’s to their consumer’s homes, Blockbuster figured their physical stores were enough to please their customers. Because they had been the leader of the movie rental market for years, management didn’t see why they should change their strategy. Back in 2000, the founder of Netflix Reed Hastings proposed a partnership to the former CEO of Blockbuster John Antioco. Netflix wanted Blockbuster to advertise their brand in the stores while Netflix would run Blockbuster online. The idea got turned down by Antioco because he thought it was ridiculous and that Netflix’s business model was “niche business”. Little did he know that Hasting’s idea would have saved Blockbuster. In 2010 Blockbuster filed for bankruptcy and Netflix is now a $28-billion-dollar company. The Forbes article aptly describes what exactly happened to Blockbuster, “The internet didn’t kill Blockbuster, the company did it to itself.” Source: (www.valuer.ai) Discuss how Blockbuster failed to innovate at the time; and how they could have restored brand equity. A brief introduction is included. A good understanding of factors that lead to companies failing to innovate, is essential(500 words) “

Today's Most Popular

Only “shared” results get saved!

“please see if my answer is correct – In Cowley and Another v Hahn 1987 (1) SA 440 (E), the court stated the following: A usufruct is a personal right, held by the usufructurary only, to the use of the property and its fruits. It does not diminish the rights of ownership such as a real or praedial servitude does, and which confers on the holder of the servitude a right in the property adverse to the dominium holder. The existence of the usufruct may well limit or restrict the enjoyment by the owner of certain rights of possession, and of benefits accruing from the property, but it does not diminish in any way any of the rights of ownership or dominium. Introduction The Judgement in the Cowley case has been heavily criticized by many legal experts for its incorrect conclusions and description of the legal nature of a usufruct. As we can see that the court made incorrect assumptions and conclusions relating to usufructs. The main issues that are critically analyse were made in the following regard; • The usufruct is a personal right , held by the usufructuary ; • It does not diminish the rights of ownership such as a real and praedial servitude does; Applicable Principles The usufruct is a personal right, held by the usufructuary As a point of departure a usufruct is a personal servitude, and as it established by law that both personal servitudes and praedial servitudes constitute real rights. A usufruct is a limited real right in terms of which the owner or grantor of a thing confers on the usufructuary the right to use and enjoy the thing and to draw both natural and civil fruits from the source which the usufruct relates. The Cowley case made a mistake when it described a usufruct as a mere personal right , and the incorrectness of this decision was identified in the Felix v Nortier 1996 case Its does not diminish the rights of ownership such as a real and praedial servitude does Since the usufructuary has the right to use and enjoy the thing to the extent that it necessarily includes the cultivation and acquisition of both the natural and civil fruits, the usufructuary becomes the owner of the fruits when she collects them and will be responsible for the costs associated with the cultivation and collection of the natural fruits. In this way owners dominium is diminished by the creation of the usufruct which is a limited real right for the duration of the usufruct. Further that the owners right of ownership can be diminished by the ability of the usufructuary to evict the owner of the property in terms of the Prevention of the Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998. Conclusion Therefore in view of the above facts , the court erred in the Cowley v Hahn 1987 case by describing a usufruct as a mere personal right and the incorrectness of this decision was confirmed in the Felix v Nortier 1996 case.”

See Answer

“erprise Risk Management in Developing Economies: A Case Study of the Zambian Financial Services Sector”Instructions:Write a critical essay analyzing the implementation of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) in the Zambian financial services sector. Your essay should:Define risk and outline the principles of ERM.Discuss the internal and external risks faced by financial institutions in Zambia.Examine challenges and success factors in embedding risk culture in organizations.Propose recommendations to improve risk governanceinZambia.”

See Answer
Reveal More