The Innovative Entrepreneur Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

The Innovative Entrepreneur - Coursework Example An example of disruptive innovation was the iPod. I admired the product because it changed how people listen and buy music (Kahney, 2011). I decided that this was an innovation because it created a new platform to get access to music which did not exist before. Starbuck recent market development strategy of â€Å"Skinny Lattes† and low fat/calorie syrup was innovative. I admired the innovation because it was able to address the increasing change in consumption behavior as more people become concerned about their health. This was innovative because it was able to create a product that fits human health through reducing the level of calories. I decided that the idea was innovative because it was able to address an existing problem of obesity (Starbucks Corporation, 2014). However, the current innovative idea might affect the consumption of other foods. This might affect the company’s performance in the market. The change of PayPal business model from a cryptography company to an online money transfer company was innovative. Currently, PayPal enables people to transfer money online from one part of the world to another within a short time. I admire this innovative idea because it was able to identify a gap that existed in the market, an aspect that led to creation of one of the most successful company in the world (Cohan, 2013). However, the disadvantage of the move is that it affected the original idea that led to establishment of the company. Kahney,  L. (2011, October 22). An Illustrated History of the iPod And Its Massive Impact [iPod 10th Anniversary] | Cult of Mac. Retrieved  May  27, 2014, from

Land law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 2

Land law - Essay Example The major factor that will be taken into consideration by the Courts is how the Covenant is drafted. In the case of Martin v David Wilson Homes ltd2, the use of the word â€Å"a† in the covenant denoted a greater deal of flexibility than the use of the word â€Å"one† in the case of Crest Nicholson v McAllister3, where the Covenant was deemed to be fully enforceable. In this case, the drafting of the Covenant is very clear that the property is not to be used to set up licensed premises such as a bar and will be strictly enforceable, especially because it is also registered, and therefore negate the young couple’s purpose in purchasing the property. If Maggie and Dave choose to ignore the restrictive covenant and continue with building a bar on the premises, it could be demolished, as was the case in Mortimer and Another v Bailey and Another4, a restrictive covenant was successfully enforced to demolish a building. However working in their favor is the recent case of Sugarman and Porter and Others5 where an existing restrictive covenant on a property was deemed to be valid only up to the period the land remained unsold. In order for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable against subsequent owners such as Maggie and Dave, the land benefiting from the Covenant must be identifiable, but in this case the neighboring land belongs to a brewery which is not likely to benefit from the restrictive covenant against a bar on the premises. It is not immediately clear who can press for enforcement of this restrictive covenant, which was the same issue raised in the case of Crest.6 Maggie and Dave can also invoke the provisions of Section 84 of the Land and property Act of 1925, under which the Lands Tribunal may modify or discharge a restrictive covenant on a freehold title where over 40 years have passed. An application can be made by the young couple on the grounds that the existing covenant is an obstruction on the reasonable use of the property which