Non-stop.

-
We have to do things non-stop in life. What i meant by non-stop is.....

Non-stop learning.

Yes. It's difficult to do it but i believe i can and i am doing it right now.

Mum just reminded me that i need to keep learning even though i got a degree.

And i ate lesser and heathier since i put on my braces. I'm happy that i am eating less rubbish food.
Things is getting more positive.✔️

Many things gonna change in 2018.

I believe this is just a turning point of a new life for me, Mary.

I love my myself very much to do sacrifices for my own good.

Thank God.


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