The polarimetric and photometric variability of Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars as caused by clumps in the winds, is revisited. In the model which is improved from Li et al. 2000, the radial expansion of the thickness is accounted for, but we retain the dependence on the beta velocity law, stellar occultation effects. We again search for parameters that can yield results consistent with observations in regards to the mean polarization, the ratio of polarimetric to photometric variability, and the volume filling factor. Clump generation and spatial distribution are randomized by the Monte Carlo method so as to produce clumps which are, in the mean, distributed uniformly in space and have time intervals with a Gaussian distribution. The generated clumps move radially outward with a velocity law determined by a beta index, and the angular size of the clumps is assumed to keep fixed. By fitting the observational results and the volume filling factor, the clump velocity law index beta and clump ejection rate are inferred, and are found to be well constrained. In addition, the subpeak features on broad emission lines seem to support the clump ejection rate. Meanwhile, the fraction of the total mass loss rate that is contained in the clumps is obtained by fitting the observed polarization. We conclude that this picture for the clump properties produces a valuable diagnostic of WR wind structure.

The main goal of this thesis is to identify and analyze problematic aspects of rights arising from defective performance in B2B sale. The analysis is set into a complex description of rights arising from defective performance. The work reflects relevant decisions of courts, national, European and international legal regulations and other texts. The thesis is divided into nine chapters including introduction and ending. The chapters are divided systematically in order to complexly introduce rights arising from defective performance to a reader, while problematic aspects of mentioned legal institute are continuously presented to a reader. In such cases those aspects are always analyzed, relevant propositions of a professional public are discussed, the author critically examines them and presents his own propositions and possible interpretation points of departure. After the introductory chapter the author defines criteria, which are deciding for a legal regime of B2B sale. At the beginning of the third chapter the author explains reasons, why he is using term obligations and rights arising from defective performance instead of a traditional term liability for defects. Then this chapter analyzes sole defective performance, a dispositive nature of obligations arising from defective performance, a...

The significance of the contract of rent (maintenance/support contract) in Lithuanian society is still rather low. That does not imply that there are no legal relationships arising from the limited use of the contract type. Several cases on the grounds of the contract of rent reached even Supreme Court of Lithuania. The contract of rent cannot boast of popularity first of all due to a low comprehension among common people. Therefore it is so important to research these types of contract, publicize and introduce it to the society. The contract of rent according to article 6.439 of Lithuanian civil code involves an obligation of the payer of rent (debtor) gratuitously or in exchange for the capital transferred to his ownership to perform periodical payments to the other party – the recipient of the rent – of a monetary amount determined in the contract (rent) or to grant maintenance to the recipient of rent in any other form. This contract differs from any other contract established in Lithuanian civil code such as purchase sale or donation contracts. Contract law theory characterizes three types of the contract of rent: rent in perpetuity (permanent rent), rent for life and life annuity. Each kind of the contract of rent has a very different object, subjects, terms and its purpose. The object of the contract of rent is capital transferred to the ownership of the payer of rent. Only life annuity differs with its special object – a dwelling house, apartment, land plot or other... [to full text]

Trata-se de estudo dirigido à afirmação da natureza objetiva da responsabilidade objetiva da Administração Pública por atos omissivos. Defende-se a correta aplicação do artigo 37 parágrafo 6 da Constituição da República, em que se fora estabelecida a responsabilidade objetiva da Administração em todas as hipóteses em que esteja configurado nexo causal entre sua atuação, comissiva ou omissiva, e um dano injusto ocorrido. É novo o enfoque que norteia a reparação civil, não mais a atividade realizada pelo agente, mas as conseqüências sofridas pela vítima deste dano injusto. Exercitada na seara da responsabilidade civil do Estado, considerado em sentido lato, parece ainda mais lógica a mudança de enfoque mencionada, em razão do princípio norteador do seu dever de reparar, que é o da repartição eqüitativa dos encargos da Administração. De fato, sempre que a atividade administrativa estatal, exercida em benefício de toda a coletividade, gerar dano injusto a um particular específico, configurar-se-á sua responsabilidade de reparar este dano, já que, se é em nome da coletividade que se adotou a conduta geradora do dano, esta a idéia principal daquela diretriz enunciada. Daí por que a verificação da presença do elemento subjetivo culpa, em sede de responsabilidade do Poder Público, fora tornada inteiramente estranho ao exame. A correta leitura do artigo constitucional, com reconhecimento da responsabilidade objetiva do Estado nas hipóteses de ato comissivo e omissivo da Administração Pública, realiza, ainda, o princípio da solidariedade social, que implica preponderância do interesse da reparação da vítima lesada sobre o interesse do agente que realiza, comissiva ou omissivamente, o ato lesivo. Essa a legitimidade da teoria do risco administrativo adotada, a adoção de coerente verificação do nexo causal, com admissão da oposição de excludentes de responsabilidade. Ademais, entre a vítima e o autor do dano injusto, a primeira não obtém, em geral, beneficio algum com o fato ou a atividade de que se originou o dano. Se assim é, a configuração do dever de indenizar da Administração Pública dependerá, apenas, da comprovação, no caso concreto, de três pressupostos que se somam: a atuação do Estado, a configuração do dano injusto e o nexo de causalidade. Será referida a jurisprudência espanhola consagrada à regra de responsabilidade objetiva da Administração Pública por atos omissivos, com considerações acerca da resposta da Jurisprudência daquele país ao respectivo enunciado normativo. Buscou-se, desta forma, elencar-se os elementos básicos à compreensão do tema, e também os pressupostos essenciais à afirmação da natureza objetiva da responsabilidade da Administração Pública por atos omissivos, que são, primordialmente, a compreensão do fundamento da regra constitucional, a correta delimitação do conceito de omissão e de causalidade omissiva. Destacados os pressupostos necessários à correta compreensão do tema, conclui-se pela afirmação da natureza objetiva da responsabilidade da Administração Pública por dano injusto advindo de ato omissivo, desde que assim o seja, querendo-se significar, desta forma, que a responsabilidade mencionada não prescinde da configuração do nexo causal entre o comportamento omissivo ocorrido e o dano injusto que se quer reparar. / This paper examines the strict liability of public administrative authorities for damage caused by omission. The author argues in favor of the correct application of article 37, paragraph 6 of the Federal Constitution, which provides for the strict liability of administrative authorities when the nexus of causation between their acts or omission and the occurrence of unjustified damage has been established. A fresh approach to tortious liability bases the duty to redress not on the activity undertaken by the agent but, rather, on the consequences suffered by the victim. This shift in focus is particularly relevant (and logical) in relation to the liability of the State, given that the principle that underlies the States duty to redress is that of equitable apportionment of burdens arising out of public administration. Whenever State administrative activity, undertaken on behalf of society as a whole, results in damage to a given individual or entity, the State is under a duty to repair such damage. As such there has been a shift away from the need to establish the existence of the culpability (negligence) of the public authority. This correct interpretation of the constitutional provision, recognizing that the State is strictly liable for damage caused by the acts or omissions of public authorities is in line with the principle of social solidarity, which in turn leads to the predominance of the victims right to redress over the interests of the agent who/which, by act or omission, caused said damage. This is the legitimate basis for the adoption of the risk of the administration doctrine, whereby [the duty to redress] is established via examination of the existence of a nexus of causation, with the administrative authority being entitled to assert facts or issues that may exclude [or diminish] its liability. Further justification for this approach arises out of the fact that the victim [unlike the administration] generally speaking derives no benefit from the fact or act which causes the damage. In such circumstances, the public administrative authoritys duty to make redress will require merely that three elements be proved: the act or omission of the State, the occurrence of unjustified damage, and the nexus of causation. Reference will be made of case law from Spain. The author therefore aims to set out the basic elements necessary for comprehension of the theme and the necessary prerequisites to an assertion of the strict liability of public authorities for acts of omission. After setting out the necessary prerequisites to a correct understanding of the theme, the author concludes that public authorities may be held strictly liable for damage arising out of an act of omission, albeit that this does not preclude the need to establish a nexus of causation between the relevant act of omission and the damage for which redress is sought.

Trata-se de estudo dirigido à afirmação da natureza objetiva da responsabilidade objetiva da Administração Pública por atos omissivos. Defende-se a correta aplicação do artigo 37 parágrafo 6 da Constituição da República, em que se fora estabelecida a responsabilidade objetiva da Administração em todas as hipóteses em que esteja configurado nexo causal entre sua atuação, comissiva ou omissiva, e um dano injusto ocorrido. É novo o enfoque que norteia a reparação civil, não mais a atividade realizada pelo agente, mas as conseqüências sofridas pela vítima deste dano injusto. Exercitada na seara da responsabilidade civil do Estado, considerado em sentido lato, parece ainda mais lógica a mudança de enfoque mencionada, em razão do princípio norteador do seu dever de reparar, que é o da repartição eqüitativa dos encargos da Administração. De fato, sempre que a atividade administrativa estatal, exercida em benefício de toda a coletividade, gerar dano injusto a um particular específico, configurar-se-á sua responsabilidade de reparar este dano, já que, se é em nome da coletividade que se adotou a conduta geradora do dano, esta a idéia principal daquela diretriz enunciada. Daí por que a verificação da presença do elemento subjetivo culpa, em sede de responsabilidade do Poder Público, fora tornada inteiramente estranho ao exame. A correta leitura do artigo constitucional, com reconhecimento da responsabilidade objetiva do Estado nas hipóteses de ato comissivo e omissivo da Administração Pública, realiza, ainda, o princípio da solidariedade social, que implica preponderância do interesse da reparação da vítima lesada sobre o interesse do agente que realiza, comissiva ou omissivamente, o ato lesivo. Essa a legitimidade da teoria do risco administrativo adotada, a adoção de coerente verificação do nexo causal, com admissão da oposição de excludentes de responsabilidade. Ademais, entre a vítima e o autor do dano injusto, a primeira não obtém, em geral, beneficio algum com o fato ou a atividade de que se originou o dano. Se assim é, a configuração do dever de indenizar da Administração Pública dependerá, apenas, da comprovação, no caso concreto, de três pressupostos que se somam: a atuação do Estado, a configuração do dano injusto e o nexo de causalidade. Será referida a jurisprudência espanhola consagrada à regra de responsabilidade objetiva da Administração Pública por atos omissivos, com considerações acerca da resposta da Jurisprudência daquele país ao respectivo enunciado normativo. Buscou-se, desta forma, elencar-se os elementos básicos à compreensão do tema, e também os pressupostos essenciais à afirmação da natureza objetiva da responsabilidade da Administração Pública por atos omissivos, que são, primordialmente, a compreensão do fundamento da regra constitucional, a correta delimitação do conceito de omissão e de causalidade omissiva. Destacados os pressupostos necessários à correta compreensão do tema, conclui-se pela afirmação da natureza objetiva da responsabilidade da Administração Pública por dano injusto advindo de ato omissivo, desde que assim o seja, querendo-se significar, desta forma, que a responsabilidade mencionada não prescinde da configuração do nexo causal entre o comportamento omissivo ocorrido e o dano injusto que se quer reparar. / This paper examines the strict liability of public administrative authorities for damage caused by omission. The author argues in favor of the correct application of article 37, paragraph 6 of the Federal Constitution, which provides for the strict liability of administrative authorities when the nexus of causation between their acts or omission and the occurrence of unjustified damage has been established. A fresh approach to tortious liability bases the duty to redress not on the activity undertaken by the agent but, rather, on the consequences suffered by the victim. This shift in focus is particularly relevant (and logical) in relation to the liability of the State, given that the principle that underlies the States duty to redress is that of equitable apportionment of burdens arising out of public administration. Whenever State administrative activity, undertaken on behalf of society as a whole, results in damage to a given individual or entity, the State is under a duty to repair such damage. As such there has been a shift away from the need to establish the existence of the culpability (negligence) of the public authority. This correct interpretation of the constitutional provision, recognizing that the State is strictly liable for damage caused by the acts or omissions of public authorities is in line with the principle of social solidarity, which in turn leads to the predominance of the victims right to redress over the interests of the agent who/which, by act or omission, caused said damage. This is the legitimate basis for the adoption of the risk of the administration doctrine, whereby [the duty to redress] is established via examination of the existence of a nexus of causation, with the administrative authority being entitled to assert facts or issues that may exclude [or diminish] its liability. Further justification for this approach arises out of the fact that the victim [unlike the administration] generally speaking derives no benefit from the fact or act which causes the damage. In such circumstances, the public administrative authoritys duty to make redress will require merely that three elements be proved: the act or omission of the State, the occurrence of unjustified damage, and the nexus of causation. Reference will be made of case law from Spain. The author therefore aims to set out the basic elements necessary for comprehension of the theme and the necessary prerequisites to an assertion of the strict liability of public authorities for acts of omission. After setting out the necessary prerequisites to a correct understanding of the theme, the author concludes that public authorities may be held strictly liable for damage arising out of an act of omission, albeit that this does not preclude the need to establish a nexus of causation between the relevant act of omission and the damage for which redress is sought.

This diploma thesis focuses on the topic of "Sale of consumer goods - rights arising from a defective performance". This topic is coherently and comprehensibly explained, with an emphasis on a comparison between the former legal regulation governing exercising of rights arising from a defective performance under the sale of consumer goods (under Act No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code) and current legal regulation governing this area (under Act No. 89/2012 Coll., Civil Code), especially with regard to changes in the position of a buyer. Formally, the thesis is divided into six chapters, which are further split into individual subchapters. The first chapter introduces the legislation containing provisions concerning rights arising from a defective performance under the sale of consumer goods. The second chapter deals with the term "sale of consumer goods", with the scope of application of this special area and its purpose. The third chapter describes the procedure of the proper exercise of a right arising from a defective performance, mainly reasons for which this juridical act can be made, what form, content or other elements it must have, who is actually entitled to this act and against whom. This chapter also presents a deadline for exercising of this right, along with arguments for and against...

The thesis focuses on regulation of transfer of undertakings in the European Union and Czech law as defined by the Directive 2001/23/EC, the so called Acquired Rights Directive. Transfer of undertaking is a term used in labour law to describe a situation of change of employer as a result of legal transfer or merger. The aim of this thesis is to analyse the EU and Czech legal regulation of transfer of undertaking, especially with respect to the case law, its employment consequences, to mutually compare both regulations and finally to examine whether the Czech implementation complies with the Directive. The thesis is composed of four chapters. The first chapter is introductory and analyses the basic terminology of Czech labour law regarding employment relationship, its components and alterations, in particular the alteration of parties to employment relationship. The second chapter deals with the EU regulation of transfer of undertakings under the Acquired Rights Directive and abundant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It starts with brief description of history of respective legal regulation and then describes the temporal, personal and territorial scope of the Directive. However, the scope that is the most complicated to define is the material scope, i.e. the range of cases to...

The thesis deals with the topic of transfer of rights and obligations arising from employment relationship. On the European level this institute is governed by Council Directive 2001/23/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses. On the domestic level, the regulation can be found in the Labour Code in Chapter XV, Part Thirteen in § 338 et seq. The thesis concerns with both regulations and examines the implementation of the Directive into Czech law. It also compares the approach of CJEU and Supreme Court of Czech republic to this issue. The topic is at first briefly introduced in the introduction. The second chapter clarifies the basic terms. Core of the thesis is the third and in the fourth chapter. Big part of the thesis is devoted to defining the scope of the regulation, that means the determination of cases, when it is aplicable. The first part of the third chapter describes the regulation of the directive and the development and current view on this issue of CJEU. The directive applies in cases of transfer of an economic entity which retains its identity. The second part of the third chapter is devoted to its equivalent in the Czech law. The Labour...

O objetivo deste trabalho foi o estudo da teoria da avoidability ou duty to mitigate the loss à luz do Direito Brasileiro. Sua escolha decorreu do fato de o ordenamento pátrio, diferente de outros tantos, não prever a existência expressa de um dever ou mais propriamente de um ônus de o contratante inadimplido adotar as medidas razoáveis ao seu alcance para reduzir as perdas e danos causados pelo inadimplemento do outro contratante. Do estudo do direito estrangeiro, procurou-se compreender as principais características do instituto, bem como as críticas feitas a ele, para que sua estrutura e suas possíveis objeções pudessem também ser examinadas sob a perspectiva do direito nacional. Demonstrado que o problema da redução dos prejuízos pelo próprio credor da indenização não poderia ser satisfatoriamente resolvido ao menos não integralmente sob a perspectiva da causalidade concorrente, e que não haveria nenhum óbice intransponível à adoção da regra, passou-se a avaliar se ela já seria uma leitura possível do princípio da boa-fé objetiva. A conclusão alcançada com base na doutrina, e posteriormente confirmada com o posicionamento jurisprudencial, mostrou-se positiva. Demonstrou-se, portanto, que a mitigação de danos pelo credor é um ônus decorrente da cláusula geral que impõe aos contratantes o dever de agir com probidade e boa-fé, dever esse que não é afetado sequer pelo inadimplemento da prestação principal pela contraparte, sob pena de o exercício do direito de indenização tornar-se abusivo. A ausência de uma regra expressa que imponha ao contratante inadimplido o ônus de mitigar seu próprio prejuízo não impede, pois, o reconhecimento da regra no Direito Brasileiro, de modo que sua positivação expressa, embora disponível, traria como única vantagem a maior clareza sobre as regras de responsabilidade contratual, com a facilitação apenas relativa do processo decisório nesses casos. / The purpose of this work was to study the theory of avoidability or the duty to mitigate the loss in light of the Brazilian law. Its choice arose from the fact that the domestic legal system, different from many others, does not set forth the express existence of a duty or more properly of a burden of the breached against party to adopt the reasonable measures available to him/her in order to reduce the losses and damages caused by the breach by the other contracting party. The study of the foreign law was sought to allow the understanding of the main characteristics of the rule, as well as the criticisms raised against it, so that its structure and its main objections could similarly be assessed under the perspective of the national law. Once demonstrated that the problem of the reduction of losses by the creditor himself/herself could not be satisfactorily resolved at least not totally based on the joint causation and that there was no unbridgeable obstacle to the adoption of the rule, it was then evaluated whether it was already a possible construction of the principle of good faith. The conclusion reached based on the literature and afterwards confirmed by the case law was positive. It was evidenced, therefore, that the mitigation of damages by the creditor is a burden arising from the general clause that poses on the contracting parties the duty to act with correctness and good faith, duty which not affected even by the breach of the main obligation by the counterpart, under the consequence of the right to damages being exercised abusively. The lack of a express rule that poses a burden on the breached against party to mitigate his/her own losses does not prevent, thus, the recognition of such a rule in the Brazilian legal system, meaning that its formal adoption, although unessential, would only bring the advantage of more clarity on the rules of damages arising from the breach of contract, with a mere relative facilitation of the decision process on these cases.

Claims arising from invalid termination of employment Abstract The aim of this Master thesis is to analyse legislation concerning the invalid employment termination, to distinguish the invalid employment termination from putative employment termination established by Act No. 89/2012 Coll., Civil Code, as amended, and especially to summarize the legislation and case law concerning claims arising from invalid employment termination. The introductory chapter contains the aims of this thesis and represents the reasons why I think this topic is still relevant. Chapter two explains the employment briefly. Chapter three provides the brief introduction to employment termination and individual subchapters present the essentials of individual types of employment termination. Chapter four analyses invalid employment termination, and relation between the Civil Code and Labour Code and defines conditions necessary to qualify the employment termination as the act. Subchapter two analyses putative employment termination and its results in employment termination field. Subchapter three concerns the invalid employment termination, distinguishes between the void termination and voidable termination and represents its grounds. Chapter five summarizes selected aspects of court proceeding. Particular subchapters therefore...