War is Kind - Stephen Crane Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

War is Kind - Stephen Crane - Essay Example War is Kind - Stephen Crane Corroborating this, the poet writes: â€Å"Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom-- A field where a thousand corpses lie†. This is the unending story of wars. The tone of the poem is sarcastic but it is not sarcasm alone but mixed with helplessness of the situation created by war. Apart from the material destruction caused by war which can be replenished, what can never be recouped are the loss of precious lives and the soldier leaves the memories of what has been and what never more will be for his immediate family members, acquaintances and the society at large. As such when the poet mentions that â€Å"war is kind† one must understand the hidden meaning of cruel kindness ingrained in the process of war. One death in the family is like the introduction of the muffled drum in the melodious symphony of an orchestra. The poet reveals this situation by introducing an element of sarcasm specifically in the lines fourteen through sixteen: â€Å"Raged at his breast, gulped and died, Do not weep. War is kind†. When two unrelated words or having contradictory connotations are employed together in structure, but they give a dissimilar meaning, it is a case of oxymoron. Some of the examples in this poem are: â€Å"virtue of slaughter†, â€Å"excellence of killing†, â€Å"splendid shroud†, â€Å"drill and die† and â€Å"blazing flag†. In this poem the poet has made the judicious use of oxymoron and the contrast is effective and likeable and the words the poet has placed together generate vivid meanings.

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - Essay Example This research tells that Amelia offered her nephew, Dan, two thousand pounds if he worked hard and got a second class degree, and her sister, Betti, five hundred pounds for errands. She also offered a two hundred fifty pound reduction of a loan she had given to Betti's husband, Giles. Giles pays the seven hundred and fifty pounds. Dan does very little work but does get a first-class degree. Amelia now wishes to know her obligations to Betti underneath this contract. The legal questions are 1. Does Dan's meeting of the second-class degree standard mean that that part of the contract is fulfilled? 2. Did the term â€Å"second-class degree† mean â€Å"at least a second-class degree† or â€Å"a second-class degree exclusively?† 3. Are the contract elements severable; that is, is Dan's possible fulfillment of the contract separate from Giles' clear fulfillment of his duties? 4. Does it make any difference that Giles, rather than Betti, paid the seven hundred and fifty pounds? 5. Can â€Å"work hard† be meaningfully quantified? Contract Interpretation The issues of the contract should be considered separately. They are 1. The offering of money to Dan for working hard and achieving a second-class degree. 2. The offering of money to Amelia for errands in the past. (However, it seems that the errands are moot: Whether Betti actually had done errands for Amelia or not, they are accepted by the contract as a matter of fact). 3. The offering of a two-hundred-fifty pound discount on a prior one thousand loan by Amelia to Giles. There are many elements to contracts even before considering the issues of estoppel and promissory consideration: Acceptance, offer, consideration, the contract being oral or written, the severability of various elements, etc. Consideration is a part of this contract, however: Both parties are offering something of value1. The family unit as a whole (Giles, Dan, and Betti) are clearly part of this contract, with Amelia bei ng the other party. For this reason, it is moot if Giles or Betti pays the seven hundred fifty pounds unless the contract specifically states otherwise. (This will, in turn, be dependent on whether the contract is verbal or written). Acceptance of the contract is an issue. Giles owed a thousand pounds. The only concrete sign on the part of Betti's family unit is the seven hundred fifty pounds Giles paid. Amelia can make a reasonable argument that she was accepting partial payment and that this was not a sign of acceptance. Similarly, Amelia paying Betti five hundred pounds could be considered as payment for a prior act, not a fulfillment of the contract. The only sign of acceptance of the contract that would not be prompted by other prior considerations between the two families would be Dan working hard and getting a second-class degree, only half of which was ever wholly completed. While Amelia did extend an offer, it is arguable that there was ever an acceptance. The acceptance is sue and the consideration issue are inextricable. Consideration â€Å"Consideration entails the parties' doing something that they were not previously bound to do outside of the agreement. In other words, promises must pay the price (consideration) that they agreed to pay the promisor in order to gain the right to enforce the promisor's obligation†. Giles was obliged to pay one thousand pounds; paying the seven hundred fifty pounds is not a consideration. Even if Betti had paid for it, she is obligated to pay the debts of her husband, as a unified family unit. But Giles did in fact pay, meaning that there had been no consideration prior.