No description available.

Despite advancements in glass facade systems and rigorous building codes requirements, glass façades often sustain damage or breaches during extreme wind events. This study aims to establish a framework that identifies a multitude of characteristics in common glass façade systems that may contribute to performance of a buildings with glass facades during natural wind disasters. Through a comprehensive analysis of damaged structures, common characteristics susceptible to damage after such events were identified. These characteristics served as a catalyst to explore other characteristic that may affect the performance of a structure's facade during extreme wind events. The identified characteristics were categorized into three groups: architectural components, structural components, and environmental. Proposed quantifiable methods aim to obtain qualitative measurements of existing glass facades. In the end, this thesis contributes to the broader goal of understanding the performance of glass facades during extreme wind events. / Master of Science / Despite advances in building design and construction standards, glass on buildings remain vulnerable to damage during severe windstorms. This study aims to develop a system that identifies key factors that contribute to a building's glass façade system during natural disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes. By analyzing data from damaged structures, common characteristics were identified that are prone to damage during extreme wind events. These findings have led to explore other factors that may impact a facade's performance in such situations. These factors were categorized into three main groups: architectural features, structural elements, and environmental considerations. The proposed methods obtain a numeral value that is measured from existing structures. Ultimately, this research aims to improve the understanding of glass facades from challenges posed by severe weather events.

The economic rationale for public intervention in decisions regarding landslide hazard mitigation was examined through a cost-benefit analysis. A study area in Cincinnati, Ohio was used to test whether a public agency decision rule is suboptimal to a private decision rule in maximizing net benefits from landslide mitigation. A 1985 U.S. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) report on landslide mitigation in Cincinnati, Ohio formed the basis for the cost-benefit analysis. Expected gross benefits from mitigation were determined by multiplying the probability of a landslide by an estimate of the property damages. A landslide probability model developed by the U.S.G.S. was tested against data for a study area in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A Spearman rank correlation test, comparing actual and predicted landslide occurrence, indicated that the model is a good predictor and could be used to predict landslides in other areas of similar geology. Due to the poor quality of data on actual landslide damages, a regression equation was estimated to predict the actual damages resulting from a landslide in the Cincinnati study area. A cost-benefit analysis was performed for the Cincinnati study area using three different approaches to measuring property damages. The results of the analysis support the hypothesis. In the most extreme case, annualized net benefits from mitigation are equal to $2.1 million under the private decision rule compared with only $1.6 million under the public agency decision rule. / Master of Arts

La contrefaçon est un phénomène de dimension internationale qui constitue aujourd’hui plus qu’hier un véritable fléau. Il apparaît que les principaux pays de provenance des contrefaçons saisies dans l’Union Européenne sont les pays d’Asie,notamment la Thaïlande. Cette recherche a pour but d'étudier les problèmes juridiques relatifs à la contrefaçon des droits de propriété intellectuelle. Ceci nous amène à poursuivre la recherche suivant deux axes. La première partie a pour but de mettre en évidence la comparaison de la définition de la contrefaçon en France et en Thaïlande. Elle se décompose en deux sous-parties, la première s'attachant à décrire la qualification de l’atteinte constitutive de contrefaçon selon les droits concernés (le terme « contrefaçon » en lui-même, tant en France qu’en Thaïlande, désignant différentes formes d’atteintes à un droit patrimonial de propriété intellectuelle). Pour identifier les atteintes constitutives de contrefaçon, notamment l’élément matériel, nous mettons l’accent sur 4 points: l’existence de la création, la diffusion de la création, l’usage de la création et la participation à l’action contrefaisante. S’agissant de l’élément intentionnel de contrefaçon, il semble présenter de multiples facettes. La seconde définit la preuve de la contrefaçon. On observe alors les moyens de preuve de la contrefaçon : la loi prévoit deux séries de mesures principales que nous pouvons regrouper en moyens de preuve en matière civile et pénale. Par ailleurs, il y a des moyens de preuve alternatifs entre les deux régimes. Ce sont des procédures douanières.La seconde partie a pour objet la prise en considération de la répression par les juridictions civiles et pénales. Elle se décompose donc en deux sous-parties : la première concerne les sanctions prononcées par les juridictions pénales. Nous avons déjà étudié la procédure pénale et les sanctions applicables à la contrefaçon. Il se trouve que la situation en Thaïlande est totalement différente de la situation française, notamment concernant la jurisprudence en matière pénale. Il semblerait que la majorité des décisions soient des sanctions prononcées par les juridictions pénales. La seconde sous-partie concerne quant à elle la réparation des atteintes à la propriété intellectuelle. Nous constatons que le préjudice subi, en France tout comme en Thaïlande constitue en un gain manqué . En outre l’évaluation du préjudice en France et en Thaïlande est difficile (préjudice subi en matière de marque, préjudice moral et fixation de l’indemnisation de peine privée). / Counterfeiting is an international problem. It appears that the main countries of origin of counterfeit goods seized in the European Union are the Asian countries, including Thailand. The research explains concisely the entire key factors to this whole problem. The research is divided into two parts; in the first place, I will outline pointly the definition of Intellectual Property Rights law (IPRs law) infringement between French and Thailand. Firstly, we focus on the structure of IPRs infringement. The term "counterfeit" in himself both in France and Thailand indicating different forms of an intellectual property rights liability conception. To identify violations constitute infringements, including the material element, we focus on four points, the existence of the creation, dissemination of the creation, use of creation, participation in the infringing action . With regard to the intentional element of infringement, iconcerned the intention of counterfeiter by the civil and criminal aspects as well as the objectives of my research would analysis on two components. First, the application of substantive issues embodies in the civil action. The second is the criminal action. The intention of counterfeiter are also intersect into two parts of action. The secondly,, we research to the proof of infringement. There provides two measures of proof in civil matters and evidence incriminal matters. In addition, there are a customs procedures as an alternative measure of proof . In the second place, we mainly concerned the IPRs law enforcement: Firstly we concerns the penalties imposed by criminal courts. We have already studied the criminal proceedings. In addition, we studied the penaltiesfor counterfeiting. We find that the criminal proceedings in Thailand is totally different from the criminal proceedings in France. In addition, we studied the penalization of IPRs law. We find that the situation in Thailand is totally different from a France, especially in criminal jurisprudence. It seems that the majority of decisions are the penalties imposed by criminal courts. Secondly were search about categories of damages and criteria for proof of damages. We find that the damages, in France as well as in Thailand, is the recovery of profit. Also the difficulty of assessing the damage, in France as well as in Thailand, are the damage of Trademark law, moral right damage and punitive damage.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:27:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Mauricio Bellucci.pdf: 1288370 bytes, checksum: 3a6e5c17c472eef0d2e84aa497db9439 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-05-28 / This work is aimed at examining scientifically if the indemnifications that one receives fit to the legal rule (regra-matriz) of income tax incidence. It justifies itself because the solution and foundation presented by the doctrine and jurisprudence is not uniform. To do so, it presents an income conception based on the legislation and doctrine and confronts it with the theme of moral and material damages repairing. It shows that such a question must be solved according to superior rules presented by the Brazilian Constitution. In the light of law general theory, of philosophy of law, and of semiotics, this work suggests some criteria to be followed by the agent that applies tax law when evaluates economic events related to damage repairing. It concludes that indemnifications do not fit to the materiality of income tax / Este trabalho objetiva analisar cientificamente o enquadramento ou não das indenizações recebidas na regra-matriz de incidência tributária do imposto sobre a renda. Justifica-se porque na doutrina e na jurisprudência não há uniformidade na solução e fundamentação apresentadas para se definir a questão. Para cumprir esse objetivo, constrói-se, com base na legislação e na doutrina, o conceito de renda, confrontando-o com o tema das reparações de danos materiais e morais. Demonstra-se que a questão deve ser resolvida por normas superiores presentes na Constituição Federal. Neste contexto e à luz da Teoria Geral do Direito, da Filosofia do Direito e da Semiótica, apresentam-se critérios que devem ser seguidos pelo aplicador da lei tributária ao avaliar os eventos econômicos inerentes às reparações de danos. Conclui-se pelo não-enquadramento das indenizações na materialidade do imposto sobre a renda

A quoi sert la responsabilité contractuelle ? « Réparer » répond la doctrine classique. « Payer ! » conteste un courant doctrinal audacieux. « Punir ? » s’interrogent quelques voix ici et là. La responsabilité contractuelle cherche à reconstituer une situation à l’image de celle qui aurait découlé de l’exécution du contrat. Ce faisant, elle ne remplit pas une fonction unique mais plusieurs fonctions. Elle est d’abord tournée vers le créancier, auquel elle offre un substitut en argent de l’exécution elle-même (fonction de paiement) et la compensation des préjudices consécutifs à l’inexécution (fonction de réparation). Les dommages et intérêts en lieu et place de l’exécution et les dommages et intérêts compensatoires se complètent et permettent le rétablissement du créancier. La responsabilité contractuelle est ensuite tournée vers le débiteur : elle punit l’inexécution d’une particulière gravité en le condamnant à verser une somme supérieure à celle due au titre du paiement et de la réparation (fonction de peine privée). Cette punition peut notamment prendre la forme d’une restitution des profits, sanction de portée générale de la violation lucrative du contrat. L’étude des fonctions de paiement, de réparation et de peine privée révèle le caractère hybride de la responsabilité contractuelle, lequel forge sa spécificité et fonde son autonomie. Des fonctions qui sont reconnues à la responsabilité contractuelle dépendent directement les conditions qui président à sa mise en oeuvre, les effets qui sont les siens, la place qu’elle occupe au sein du droit de l’inexécution, son articulation avec les autres sanctions et la frontière qui la sépare de la responsabilité délictuelle. Cette étude de droit comparé, qui inclut, aux côtés du droit français, les droits allemand et anglais, examine les interactions entre les fonctions et les sanctions de la responsabilité contractuelle en vue d’une meilleure compréhension et d’une possible reconstruction de cette institution. / What is the purpose of contractual liability? “To compensate” will be the classical answer. “To provide a substitute for performance!” will dissent some daring scholars. “To punish?” will ask some voices here and there. Contractual liability aims at reproducing a situation similar to the one that would have resulted from performance. In doing so, it fulfils not one, but several functions. Firstly, looking at the creditor, contractual liability offers him a monetary substitute for performance itself (satisfactory function) and a compensation for the consequential loss suffered due to the breach of contract (compensatory function). Secondly, turning to the debtor, contractual liability punishes particularly serious breaches of contract by allowing an amount of damages greater than the cost of performance and compensation (punitive function). In case of a profit-oriented breach, this punishment can take the form of an account of profits. The clarification of these three functions reveals the hybrid nature of contractual liability that forges its specificity and provides the conceptual foundations for its autonomy. On these functions depend the conditions and effects of contractual liability, its place in contract law and its articulation and combination with the other remedies for breach of contract, as well as its borderline to tortious liability. This comparative work in French, German and English Law examines the interactions between the functions and the sanctions within contractual liability in view of a better understanding and a possible rational reconstruction of the concept of contractual liability.

No description available.

La situation actuelle des règles relatives à la responsabilité civile de l'entrepreneur pour les dommages environnementaux provoqués par l’exploitation offshore d’hydrocarbure et le transport de ce produit par des navires pétroliers, démontre que le législateur a été de plus en plus concerné par la question de la santé environnementale. Cependant, il y a beaucoup de lacunes dans les lois nationales qui peuvent entraîner une incertitude juridique considérable pour l'entrepreneur et en même temps, ne pas fournir une protection adéquate à l'environnement et à l’homme. L’étude comparée des systèmes juridiques démontre qu’il est extrêmement important que les pays qui sont exposés aux périls des marées noires, notamment ceux qui exploitent des hydrocarbures dans la mer, disposent d’un fonds spécial d’indemnisation pour garantir et faciliter la restauration de l’environnement et le payement des indemnisations aux victimes. Outre la protection de l’environnement et des droits des citoyens, le fonds offre aussi la possibilité d’application des cas exceptés et de la limitation de responsabilité. Le fonds serait utilisé pour couvrir les préjudices au-delà de la limite de responsabilité de l’entrepreneur ou dans les cas où la responsabilité de celui-ci est écartée par un cas excepté. / The current situation of the rules governing the liability of the entrepreneur for environmental damage caused by offshore oil exploration and by the transportation of this product by oil tankers, shows that the legislator is more concerned with environmental health issues. However, there are many gaps in national legislations that can lead to considerable legal uncertainty for the responsible parties. While, at the same time it does not provide adequate protection for the environment and to human beings. The comparative study of legals systems shows the importance that countries that are exposed to the dangers of oil spills, especially those exploiting oil in the sea, to have a special indemnisation fund to guarantee and facilitate environmental restoration and payment of compensation to victims. Besides protecting the environment and citizens' rights, the fund also offers the possibility of applying the defenses of liability and limitation of liability. The funds would be used to cover the losses beyond the limit of liability of the responsible partie or when the responsibility for the accident is ruled out by a liability defense cause.

The thesis deals with monetary remedies in intellectual property infringement suits, focusing on industrial property rights. On the background of enacting of the czech Act number 221/2006 Sb. which implements the directive 2004/48/EC of the European parliament and of the Council, the thesis compares these two texts with each other and also with the proposal for the directive KOM(2003) 46 final in their relevant parts. By doing this, it evaluates the directive and the czech act as the directive's implementation. This evaluation represents the secondary aims of the thesis. Comparison, analysis of factual articles and interviews with relevant experts practicising in the area show that by setting the damages as double the "customary" royalties, the czech Act in his § 5 ods. 2 represents a sanction, which confirms the hypothesis of the prevailance of an analogy between the czech provison and the punitive damages in american law. This fact creates scope for the hypothesis of existance of further analogies, the verification of which is the central aim of the thesis. Therefore, the second part of the thesis analyzes american provisions of the United States Code concerning copyright, trademark and patent law, and related caselaw. This is compared both to the directive and the proposal for it, moreover to the czech copyright Act number 121/2000 Sb. and in particular to the czech Act number 221/2006 Sb. The third part supplements the analysis of relevant czech court decisions. The second and third part identify similar and distinct elements of the provisions and reveal analogies in seemingly different institutes. Differences are spotted in the construct used to achieve the punitive function, furthermore between the terms "customary royalty" and "reasonable royalty" and also between the terms "bezdôvodné obohatenie", "infringer's profits" and "unjust enrichment". Conversely, an analogy is identified between the discretionary power of american courts to increase proven damages or determine statutory damages and the czech institute of "primerané zadosťučinenie" (appropriate satisfaction). The prevailance of prohibition of double recovery is another existing analogy between the american and czech law.

This thesis deals with compensation for immaterial damages in the Czech Republic and Germany with focus on personal injuries and a specific question of wrongful birth and wrongful life actions. Its aim is to describe the differences between both legislations. In the first part my work is concerned with a theoretical analysis of the conditions of damage liability in the tort law in both countries. The second chapter follows up with the definition of material and immaterial damages and the way and extent of their compensation. The third one is concentrated directly on personal injuries, it introduces the term and the range of persons entitled to a compensation and it analyses the way and extent of the compensation for personal injuries (above all the damages for pain and suffering) in the Czech Republic and Germany, with specific emphasis on the Methodology of the Czech Supreme Court on the compensation for immaterial damages in case of personal injuries. The fourth chapter is focused on an ethical and legally complicated question of wrongful birth and wrongful life actions.