This paper has attempted to determine if there is a significant relationship between self-determination and client outcomes among the homeless. The study has been based upon the conceptual framework set forth in Self-Determination Theory. The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship between self-determination and client outcomes among the homeless. Using a data collection instrument, based on empirically validated instrumentation, clients from several homeless service providers in the City of San Bernardino were assessed for the level of self-determination and autonomy support they experience within these agencies. Outcome measures included such things as whether the client was going to school, had a job and had a bank account. Overall, the results of the study were inconclusive, though some interesting post hoc observations were made. It was the primary aim of this paper to increase the knowledge base of the local network of homeless service providers and to promote the compassionate, equitable, and dignified treatment of the population they serve.

Vid en fastighetsöverlåtelse är det mycket information som ska utbytas på kort tid, mellan köpare, säljare och mäklare vad beträffar fastighetens fysiska skick och standard. I egenskap av en lojal, opartisk och sakkunnig person avseende fastighetsförsäljningar, har mäklaren ålagts en upplysningsplikt avseende sådant kring fastighetens skick som denne iakttagit, känner till eller annars har anledning att misstänka, som kan antas ha betydelse för köparen. Räckvidden av mäklarens upplysningsplikt gentemot köparen, avseende fysiska missförhållanden enligt FML 16§ 3st. kommer att utgöra uppsatsens brännpunkt. I detta inryms att söka klar-göra vilka typer av fysiska missförhållanden som en mäklare förväntas informera en köpare om, för att inte riskera att drabbas av någon typ av påföljd. Därutöver utreds förutsägbarheten och ändamålsenligheten kring FML 16§ 3st. Bedömningen av mäklarens upplysningsplikt ska även ses utifrån köparens och säljarens inbördes ansvarsområden för faktiska fel i fastigheten, samt i vilken omfattning det anses motiverat att mäklaren ikläder sig parternas ansvarsroller. Hänsyn i bedömningen får även tas till det faktum att mäklaren åläggs en grundläggande lojalitetsplikt som denne uppbär gentemot såväl köparen som säljaren. Problematiken kan i första hand härledas till tvetydiga och tämligen oklara förarbetsuttalanden, samt frånvaron av prejudicerade rättspraxis på området. Rättsreglerna kring bestämmelsen synes därav även vara svåra att tillämpa i de lägre domstolsinstanserna och hos tillsynsmyndigheten, FMN. Därav kvarstår osäkerhet kring rättsläget avseende omfattningen av mäklarens upplysningsplikt vad beträffar fysiska missförhållanden härlett till fastigheten. / When selling a property there is much information, in regards to the property’s physical standard, which should be discussed between the parties; the realtor, the buyer and the property owner. In relation to the buyer and the property owner, the realtor will be known as a loyal, independent person that carries expert know-ledge in regards to selling property. Therefore the realtor should carry the liability to inform the buyer about physical errors according to the property, that has been found, or for some other reason will be known, or if there is a reason to suspect an error, that can be of  importance to the buyer. The focus point of this thesis is the magnitude of the realtor’s liability to inform the buyer on physical errors, according to FML 16§ 3st., and to examine what kind of physical errors that the buyer have the right to be informed of. Because if the realtor do not respect the obligations according to FML 16§ 3st., legal sanctions will be given. The author will also examine if the legal rule, FML 16§ 3st., is predictable and appropriate. To examine the magnitude of the realtor’s liability to inform the buyer on physical errors, the legal relation between the buyer and the property owner has to be taken into account according to JB 4:19§. The fact that the realtor also carries a responsibility to submit to good faith and fair dealing will also be interesting. The principal legal issue will be based on the unclear preparatory work, regarding to FML (2011:666) 16§ 3st., and the magnitude of realtor’s liability to inform the buyer on physical errors. Furthermore, there is no case law given by the Swedish Supreme Courts, and that is one more reason why the area is so hard to apply. The legal position will therefore stay unclear, according the realtor’s liability to inform the buyer about physical errors of the property.

L’approche juridique de la notion de création est confuse. Elle est traditionnellement envisagée à travers les droits de propriété intellectuelle (droit d’auteur, brevet, dessins et modèles, etc.). Mais cette approche est insuffisante. Les droits fondamentaux permettent de s’en apercevoir. En effet, la création constitue à la fois une activité humaine (un acte créatif) et un objet de propriété (un bien créatif). L’acte créatif est garanti par la liberté de création. La nature de cette dernière demeure toutefois incertaine. Elle oscille entre un rattachement à la liberté d’expression ou à la liberté du commerce et de l’industrie. De plus, le test de proportionnalité conduit à examiner les limites de la liberté de création à l’aune des « lois du genre créatif ». Les droits fondamentaux invitent alors à dépasser la conception de l’acte créatif compris comme un message.Le bien créatif est protégé par le droit de propriété. Les droits fondamentaux conduisent cependant à remettre en cause la conception française des biens créatifs en soulignant davantage leur dimension économique. De plus, le test de proportionnalité implique de redessiner les limites du droit de propriété en tenant compte de ses fonctions sociales. En définitive, les droits fondamentaux brouillent la frontière entre le droit de propriété et le droit de la concurrence déloyale. / The legal approach to the notion of creation is vague. It is traditionally considered in the light of intellectual property rights (copyright, patent, design, etc.), but this approach is insufficient. Fundamental rights show us this. They let us distinguish between its different dimensions: creation as both a human activity (a creative act) and an object of property (a creative good). The freedom of creation protects and ensures the creative act. However, the nature of the former remains unclear. It fluctuates between falling within the freedom of expression and the freedom to conduct a business. Furthermore, the proportionality test leads to the limits of creative freedom being examined in terms of “laws of the creative type”. Fundamental rights then require us to go beyond the concept of the creative act as a message.The creative good is protected by property law. Fundamental rights, however, bring into question the French concept of a creative good by further emphasising their economic aspect. Moreover, the proportionality test means retracing the boundaries of property law by taking into account its social functions. Fundamental rights therefore blur the line between property law and unfair competition law.