Confused.

-
I just decided to continue blogging abt my life.

Just to leave some memories for me.

25th May was my last recital and its already been like 3 weeks since.

Considered myself a graduated from university with a performing arts degree. Still unsure of what to do the next step. I guess i should write a to-do list probably.

I gonna cut my hair a little shorter then usual. I am going to be more of a do-er than a speaker. PLEASE.

No more wasting time.

And i am having some sleeping problem lately. Seriously.

6 weeks to competition and 7 weeks to audition date.

Listening to an old westlife song which i used to love it when i am in DJ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLlJk04aqMk

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Law of Torts: Case Study #1 Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

-
Before analyzing the principles of negligance, here's some simple definition to some legal words to make it easier to understand : 1.Negligance- action taked by the defendent that causes foreseeable danger or injury to another. 2.Duty of care- a moral or legal obligation to ensure the safety or well-being of others. 3.Precedent- an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. Fact of the case: Mrs Donoghue drank a bottle of ginger beer given by her friend. A decomposing remain of a snail was discovered inside the bottle. She fell ill and was diagonsed with gastroenterities. A legal action was then taken against Mr David Stevenson, the manufacturer of ginger beer. This case established the modern concept of negligance in the English Law. Principles: (important elements from this cas e) 1. Negligance - House of Lords affirmed that negligance is a tort. (Negligance was accepted as a separate tor...
Read more

Law of Torts: Case Study #2 Anns v. Merton LBC (1978)

-
Principle of pure economic loss Fact of the case: The claimants were the tenants/leaseholders in a block of flats. The flat suffered some structural defects ranging from cracks on the walls, slopping of floors and subsidence due to inadequate foundations which were 2ft 6ins deep instead of 3ft deep as required. The council was responsible for inspecting the foundation during the contruction of the flats.The claimants sued the Merton LBC instead of the builder as they saw the council having more financial resources in terms of paying out the damages. The claimants based their claim on two reasons: (a) the council's negligence in approving the plans of the properties (b) council's failure to inspect at the time of construction The claimants initial hearing failed as the action was only taken six years after the sales of flat. It was successfully appealed that action could only be taken when it was discovered. The claimants won the lawsuits as the House of Lords and ...
Read more