Learn How to Conjugate Gagner (to Win) in French

French verbs tend to be a challenge for students. While the conjugations of  gagner  are rather common, remembering that it means to win or to earn is a bit more difficult. Yet, by the time youre done learning how to conjugate  gagner  to mean won or will earn, it will be implanted in your memory. Conjugating the French Verb  Gagner Gagner  is a  regular -ER verb  and it follows a very common verb conjugation pattern. In fact, the majority of French verbs use the same endings youll learn here and that makes each new one just a little easier to remember. Whenever we begin a conjugation, its important to recognize the verb stem. In this case, its  gagn-. With that bit of knowledge, we can add a variety of endings that match both the subject pronoun and the tense of the sentence. For instance, I am winning is je gagne and we will win is nous gagnerons. Subject Present Future Imperfect je gagne gagnerai gagnais tu gagnes gagneras gagnais il gagne gagnera gagnait nous gagnons gagnerons gagnions vous gagnez gagnerez gagniez ils gagnent gagneront gagnaient The Present Participle of  Gagner The  present participle  of  gagner  is formed by adding -ant  to the verb stem, giving us  gagnant. Its a very useful word that stretches beyond the verb usage. You may also find it helpful as an adjective, gerund, or noun. The Past Participle and Passà © Composà © The  passà © composà ©Ã‚  is a common past tense form used in French. To construct it, begin by conjugating the  auxiliary verb  avoir  to match the subject pronoun, then attach the  past participle  gagnà ©. For example, I won is jai gagnà © and we earned is nous avons gagnà ©. More Simple  Gagner  Conjugations to Learn While those forms of  gagner  are most important, there are a few more conjugations you should consider learning. In conversation, for instance, you can imply a degree of uncertainty or dependency by using either the subjunctive verb mood or the conditional. If you read a lot of French, you will encounter the passà © simple. Likewise, the imperfect  subjunctive is a literary tense and its a good idea to be able to recognize these. Subject Subjunctive Conditional Pass Simple Imperfect Subjunctive je gagne gagnerais gagnai gagnasse tu gagnes gagnerais gagnas gagnasses il gagne gagnerait gagna gagnt nous gagnions gagnerions gagnmes gagnassions vous gagniez gagneriez gagntes gagnassiez ils gagnent gagneraient gagnrent gagnassent To use  gagner  in short statements, use the imperative form and skip the subject pronoun. Instead of tu gagne, use gagne alone. Imperative (tu) gagne (nous) gagnons (vous) gagnez

Presentation At The 2010 Cooley Law School Symposium On...

This article originated from the author s presentation at the 2010 Cooley Law School Symposium on the CSI Effect. It reviews the results of two empirical studies of Michigan jurors in various jurisdictions, which previously concluded that the prosecutor version of the so-called CSI effect cannot be substantiated empirically. The article then describes merged data from the two studies and the analysis of that merged data. The data supports the earlier suggestion of a tech effect based on cultural changes, rather than any direct impact on certain television programs or genres. It is suggested that while the prosecutor version of the CSI effect is a myth, there are increased juror expectations that arise from the combination of the tech effect, the general media portrayal of forensic evidence, and the misperception of attorneys and judges that the CSI effect does exist. Possible justice system responses to that combined effect are described, and it is suggested that the legal system mus t adapt itself to modern juror expectations rather than blaming jurors for unreasonable expectations and demands for forensic science evidence. Blaming CSI Is Too Simplistic Donald Shelton, the chief judge of Washtenaw County, Mich., is skeptical. He began to notice that reports about the CSI Effect were long on anecdote, and short on data. â€Å"One of the things that surprised me when I started looking into the CSI Effect was that there was no empirical research. Even the so-called

Business Structures Legal Implications and Principles of Company Law

Question: Discuss about the Business Structures and Legal Implications. Answer: Sole Proprietorship: This is a business organization with the simplest structure. This organization is not complex and it is very easy to set up because it requires very few taxation and legal formalities. A sole trader4 is responsible for all the operations of the business, and he is also responsible for the debts that the business organization incurs, which can be recovered from his personal properties. Partnership: This is a business organization that comprises of two or more people who do business together, operating as partners. Under this business organization, the partners share income or profits that they receive from the operation of the business. In a partnership business, the control of a business organization is shared, and the level and manner of control is agreed upon by the partners, in a document called the partnership deed (Farrar 2001). However, it is important to note that members of a partnership are always liable for the debts that the business organization incurs, basically because it is not considered as a separate legal entity. Joint Venture: A joint venture involves a business organization where by two or more people come together for purposes of carrying out a single project. This is as opposed to engaging in a continuous business process. For this process to be valid, people forming a joint venture must come up with a joint venture agreement. A company: A company is an organization that is regulated by the 2001 Corporation Act, and it is a separate legal entity. This means that the shareholders of a company cannot be held liable for the debts of the company, and it has the same characteristics as a natural person, whereby, anybody can sue the company, or it can be sued. The structure of a company is very complex, and it requires high administrative costs, and it is regulated by a large number of commonlaw principles and the corporation act. Fiduciary and Statutory Responsibilities The fiduciary duties that the director has for the company are; To promote the interests of the company he is working for. Not to disclose confidential information belonging to the company. To avoid engaging in any activity that will be seen as a conflict of interest. The statutory duties that a director has towards a company are, Avoiding to act in a criminal manner as per section 184 of the 2001 Corporation Act. Section 588 of the 2001 Corporations Act prohibits the directors of the company from engaging in trade if the company is insolvent. Section 191 of the corporations act requires directors of the company to disclose any personal information they have which may jeopardize the operations of the business organization. Directors have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. They have a duty to advise them during meetings so that they make informed decisions about their investments. To promote the interests of shareholders during acquisitions and takeovers. Basic Concepts of Australian Company Law and Analysis Corporatelaw examines the manner which different stakeholders of a company are able to interact with one another. These stakeholders are the directors, shareholders, consumers, etc. Countries have different laws that govern their relationships, and a problem normally arises when tow companies coming from different countries have a commercial problem. The issue that arises is the kind oflaw that will help to solve the conflicts between these two companies. In such kind of a conflict, thelaw that would be used to solve the problem is where the problem occurred (Wells 2014). For instance, if the conflict occurs in Australia, it is the 2001 Corporations Act that would be used to solve the problem. Companies normally have shareholders, directors and employees, and these people work together for purposes of ensuring the success of the company. However, there are rules and obligations that have been set up by the common law doctrines and the 2001 Corporations Act that regulate that manner which these people work together. For example, section 256A of the Corporations Act prohibits the directors of the company from engaging in any activity that will jeopardize the interests of the shareholders and the company. On the other hand, the case law of Ooregum Gold Mining v Roper denotes that the directors of the company have the responsibility of protecting the interests of creditors, through desisting from engaging in expensive corporate activities that will lead to the reduction of capital that belongs to the company. This is in a bid to promote the principles of limited liability, which is one of the advantages that shareholders enjoy. It is important to note that there are always a number of conflicting situations and problems that corporate organizations face, and examples include problems touching on the person who is responsible for managing shares, methods of appointing and dismissing a director, powers of the board of directors, responsibilities of directors, etc. The Corporate Act has been established for purposes of solving the various problems and challenges that corporate organizations are facing (Subedi 2016). Therefore, without the corporate act, it would be difficult to determine the various relationships and roles of different stakeholders in a company. Problems arising out of the ownership and distributions of shares are another source of conflict in companies. The Corporate Act manages to identify the different types of shares, manner of distribution, ownership, etc. On this note, the Corporate Act plays an important role in ensuring that it solves the various problems affecting business organizations. Corporate Law and Public Policy One of the areas where Australian corporate law is currently applicable in public policy touches on the principles of disclosure. Section 672A of the Australian 2001 Corporate Act gives power to corporate regulators such as the Australian Securities and Investment Commission to request disclosures of a companys financial assets. The intention of this policy is to protect the interest of shareholders, creditors, and to protect the company from recession, that may emanate from poor trading policies. References Laws Corporation Act, 2001 section 256A Corporation Act, 2001 section 672A Corporation Act, 2001 section 184 Corporation Act, 2001 section 191 Corporation Act, 2001 section 588 Books Farrar, J.H., 2001.Corporate Governance in Australia and New Zealand. Oxford University Press, USA. Subedi, S.P., 2016.International investment law: reconciling policy and principle. Bloomsbury Publishing. Wells, S., 2014.A Collection of the Laws Which Form the Constitution of the Bedford Level Corporation(Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.