LOFTER for ipad —— 让兴趣,更有趣

点击下载 关闭

LOFTER-网易轻博

案例分析

4521浏览    238参与
榜单数据更新于2020-03-28 01:31
心理咨询师韩美龄

社交恐怖症

来访者情况:柳某,女,二十一岁,某科技大学三年级学生。

来信诉说了近年来的苦恼,并希望如有可能一定前来咨询。她在信中说:“长期以来,我一直经受着心理障碍的困扰和折磨,时至今日,我仍旧无法摆脱这个阴影。它已经给我的生活和学习造成了很大的损失。我真心希望心理医生能帮助我)她还在信中提出了会见时间,又特意嘱咐道:“我不愿这件事让别人知道,也不希望众多过往的同学看见我,我没有勇气前来敲门,请你们将咨询室外的门开一小缝,我即可进来。”

按照约定时间,心理医生把门敞开着。她来了,神色慌张而羞怯,大步跨入咨询室后赶紧把门关上。心理医生一面热情地为她让坐,一面告诉了心理医生有关心理咨询...

来访者情况:柳某,女,二十一岁,某科技大学三年级学生。

来信诉说了近年来的苦恼,并希望如有可能一定前来咨询。她在信中说:“长期以来,我一直经受着心理障碍的困扰和折磨,时至今日,我仍旧无法摆脱这个阴影。它已经给我的生活和学习造成了很大的损失。我真心希望心理医生能帮助我)她还在信中提出了会见时间,又特意嘱咐道:“我不愿这件事让别人知道,也不希望众多过往的同学看见我,我没有勇气前来敲门,请你们将咨询室外的门开一小缝,我即可进来。”

按照约定时间,心理医生把门敞开着。她来了,神色慌张而羞怯,大步跨入咨询室后赶紧把门关上。心理医生一面热情地为她让坐,一面告诉了心理医生有关心理咨询的保密原则,并表明乐意为她排忧解难。

她认为自已是个怪人,有个害羞的怪毛博两年多来,从不多与人讲话,与人讲话时不敢直视,眼睛躲闪,像做了亏心事。一说话脸就发烧,低头盯住脚尖。心怦怦跳,肌肉起鸡皮疙瘩,好像全身都在发抖。她不愿与班上同学接触,觉得别人讨厌自己,在别人眼中是个:怪人”。最怕接触男生.即使在寝室里,只要有男生出现,也会不知所措。对老师也害怕,上课时,只有老师背对学生板书时才不紧张。只要老师面对学生,就不敢朝黑板方向看。常常因为紧张,对老师所讲的内容不知所云。更糟糕的是,现在在亲友、邻居面前说话也“不自然”了。由于这些毛病,极少去社交场所,很少与人接触。自己曾力图克服这个怪毛病,也看了不少心理学科普图书,按照社交技巧去指导自己;用理智说服自己,用意志控制自己,但作用就是不大。后来她哭诉说,这个怪毛病严重影响了她各方面的发展:学习成绩下降;交往失败,同学们说她清高。她正在争取入党,同学关系不好肯定不行。眼看就快毕业了,这样下去怎样适应社会呢?她急切地就:“医生,请你快点告诉我,我为什么会这样呢,我该怎样才能克服怪毛病呢?”

分折诊断:从柳某的来信叙述和她与心理医生的面谈经过,心理医生分析她是一种常见的心理障碍——社交中的对人恐怖症。这是由心理原因导致的。只要通过心理分析和心理治疗,可以逐渐消除。

施治方案:认知领悟疗法,放松训练法。

咨询与治疗:首先,让她回顾一下所经历过的不愉快事件,分析一下自己性格形成的过程,以找出造成她现在这种情况的真正原因,在心理医生的耐心开导下,柳某细细地回忆道:“我从小性格内向、胆些孤僻。父母对我要求极严甚至苛求。父亲动起怒来特可怕。记得一次我的考试成绩不理想,父亲让我重做生题,我不乐意。父亲怒气冲天地将钢笔甩到我脸上,笔尖刺伤了我的脸,鲜血直流.至今想起那件事还很害伯。父母很正统、很古板,对我的禁忌很多,不准我和男孩子交往。父亲认为女孩子在外蹦蹦跳跳、打打闹闹是不正经的,还容易上坏人的当。所以除了学校和家,我很少在外玩耍,从不和男生交往.中学时,见到男女生之间的往来很反感。”

谈到不愉快的经历,柳某还讲道:‘初中时,一向成绩很好的我,一次提问没答好,老师当众批评我、挖苦我,我难过得直流眼泪。再就是大一时,同室一位同学来自农村,家境不好,我经常主动帮助她;资助她,可这样反而伤了她自尊似的。她不但不把我当朋友,反而时常挑剔我、指责我、刁难我,故意当我的面和其他同学亲亲热热,冷落我、孤立我。这使我委曲极了,难过极了。我恨自己,自责自己是不受欢迎的人。后来,我们发生了冲突。我讨厌她、恨她、和她不讲话。我也觉得她讨厌我。不知不觉地我就怕和人接触了,愈来愈害羞了。”


心理医生以关切的耐心的态度听完了她的述说,时间已过了两个多小时,只得约定改日再谈……

第二次会见时,心理医生先为她作了原因分析:①你的内向、孤僻、胆小的性格特征是影响人际交往的内在因素。②父母对你交往中的禁忌以及灌输的与男性交往的“羞耻感道德意识”,使你的性格中形成了较强的羞耻心,这对人际交往起着阻碍作用。③少儿时,你父亲发怒导致的恐惧反应和老师当众的批评、挖苦所产生的羞辱反应在你的心灵深处留下了负性心理印痕。这种印痕会由于日后的负性生活事件而被激活,对心理障碍的产生和发展起作用。④在与同学相处中感到“好心未得好报”,反被误解,恶意相待,于是委屈、怨恨、愤激;又由于心理防御机制的作用,这些挫折反应在潜意识中被转换为对那位同学的压抑的敌意和回避反应导致你产生了泛化心理现象(即由对某一人的敌意、回避发展为对周围的人都产生了戒备心和回避反应);另一方面,自责、自怨加重了你性格中的羞耻心和胆怯。所以,人际矛盾这桩负性生活事件是导致你对人恐怖的直接的、现实的诱因。⑤正值青春期的你,一方面有着正常的与异性接触的愿望;另一方面你已经内化了的有关两性交往的“羞耻感道德意识”有意无意地使你批判自己的想法,抑制自己的欲望。因而,你常常处在一种是否与异性交往的心理冲突之中。而害伯、羞于见男生这种病态反而减轻了你的这种冲突。从心理学上讲,体的“症状”是内心冲突的“改头换面”。⑥当你出现对人恐怖反应后,便批评、督促自已该怎样怎样,控制自己不要怎样怎样,这就产生了一种暗示、强化“症状”的作用。再加之你愈感到“不自然”、“狼狈”、“难堪”,头脑中就愈多地出现“想象观念”。这进一步导致了你的自我感觉恶化。如此恶性循环,“症状”便日益严重了。你在这种想改变又未能改变,想摆脱又无力摆脱的困境中,早年的负性心理印痕被激活了,与现实问题交织在一起,产生了综合作用。这就是为什么除了回避同性,害怕男生外,还那么怕上课的老师的缘故。


在心理医生分析的过程中,她频频点头,表示赞同心理医生的看法。

接着,心理医生给她提出了一些建议:①设身处地地站在那位被你帮助而又对你不友好的同学的角度想一想,理解并宽容她。同时检查自己是否存在过敏、多疑等不利于交往的心理。以此,逐渐解除压抑的敌意。②正确认识两性间的正常交往,认识青春期渴望接近异性很正常,摒弃旧的道德意识,尊重自己的正当意愿。③找两位关系较好的女生了解一下她们对你在与人交往中的反应,如脸红、发抖、目光恍忽等“不自然”状态是否确实。目的是让她通过调查,克服“想象观众”的作用。对此条建议,起初她感到很为难。但经心理医生讲解了人际交往中的真诚原则,她勉强答应试一试。

一周后,柳某再次前来,这次是敲门听见“请进”的声音才进来的,显然没有了前次的那种慌张神色。她有些兴奋地告诉心理医生,那天咨询后,有了克服自己心理障碍的信心;对障碍的原因又进行了思考,心理明朗了许多,好像“拨开了迷雾”;这几天对自己过去的想法进行了反思,和同寝室同学接近了些。关键是,她鼓足勇气找了两闰女同学述说了自己在人际交往中的自我感觉和痛苦后,一位同学说她“是有些腼腆”,但认为这是她的性格表现,并不以为然;另一位同学说根本没觉察到也有什么“脸红”、“发抖”之类的“不自然”表现,非常奇怪她为什么有那么多的“感觉”。两位同学的评价开始动摇了柳某的“想象观众”观念,认为“可能我在她们面前是没有自己想象的那么不自然,那么狼狈”。但她仍然坚信男生、老师看出了自己的毛博讨厌自己。

对于她的思考、领悟以及行为上的进步,心理医生给予了肯定和鼓励。在对障碍原因进一步讨论和对人际交往方面的一些方式方法作出必要的指导后,心理医生为柳某制定了下一步的治疗计划:①每天坚持写观察日记,着重观察周围人的举止言行和对你的态度。②分别调查两位老师和两位男生对你的评价,证实自己的感觉是否正确。③每天做二至三次想象——放松训练。即在想象中将最想见又最怕见的人(如某位男生),想回避又回避不了的人(如任课老师)突然呈现在自己面前,体察自己的情绪反应和心理反应,然后放松,使情绪和肌体产生由紧张到松驰的反应,最后产生意向上的适应并扩展到现实行为中。④为其布置了“大目标小步走”的与人接触、交谈的作业。⑤加深对障碍产生原因的认识,淡化负性心理印痕,提高挫折承受力,树立正确的交往观。

为了检查计划执行情况和进行反馈调节,心理医生又约见了柳某几次。从反馈中了解到,通过注意观察别人和写观察日记,发现“别人各做各的事,各忙各的,并不特别关注我,也不在意我的行为。”在对男生和老师的调查中,她意外地获知:由于自己成绩不错,听课时埋头笔记,老师说她“很有发展潜力”,辅导员对她争取入党给予了热情鼓励。男生对她的评价是“文静、端庄、矜持,只是觉得像一位“骄傲的公主”,但并没发现她有什么异常,更不讨厌她。这些评价证实了她自己过去“想象观念”的错误性,使她信心大增。再加之改变了过去一些不正确的观念,坚持了想象放松训练,执行了逐步与人交往的任务。

总结:对社交恐惧症的治疗应以心理咨询为主,并辅以心理治疗,如转移疗法,满灌疗法,尤其是系统脱敏疗法。

社交恐惧症之所以是后天形成的,也就在于社交能力不是与生惧来的。一方面固然需要通过人际交往掌握社交技巧,以扩大社交面,一方面要具备健全的人格发展,才可能进行人际交往。因此,社交恐怖实际上是人格发展过程中,尤其是青少年难以避免的。不过,还是个人人格发展的不健全才导致了习惯性的社交恐怖,从而形成社交恐怖症,影响着正常的学习与生活。所以增强自信、参加集体活动是战胜社交恐怖的关键。

Learning Time

【To be better】一个信息系统项目案例分析

案例背景

老板交代给同事的任务是“将公司现有的各类系统集成为一个平台”,时间要求3个月,然后没有了。。。项目目前没有目标客户群,尚未进行全面的市场调查和分析,现有的各类软硬件系统大部分为外包产品,且并不成熟。公司的业务、部门、人员、流程等各方面都比较复杂和混乱。同事现在的职位为分公司现有的最高职位副总经理,手下勉强算有十几个人,其中有2个为开发人员,总公司另有1-2名单一产品线的技术人员可按要求进行协助。除人力以外的其他资源、决策性行动(合同、资金支出等)需要总公司批准。 

案例分析

通过分析以上情况,可得知以下几点:

1.     ...

案例背景

老板交代给同事的任务是“将公司现有的各类系统集成为一个平台”,时间要求3个月,然后没有了。。。项目目前没有目标客户群,尚未进行全面的市场调查和分析,现有的各类软硬件系统大部分为外包产品,且并不成熟。公司的业务、部门、人员、流程等各方面都比较复杂和混乱。同事现在的职位为分公司现有的最高职位副总经理,手下勉强算有十几个人,其中有2个为开发人员,总公司另有1-2名单一产品线的技术人员可按要求进行协助。除人力以外的其他资源、决策性行动(合同、资金支出等)需要总公司批准。 

案例分析

通过分析以上情况,可得知以下几点:

1.      该项目的目标是无效的。因为目标不可衡量的,不明确。

2.      项目时间是明确的,为3个月。考虑到马上要过年了,可用的工作日实际上只有约50天左右。

3.      项目需要推向市场,但目前没有客户,也就是说项目的目标客户就是老板,那么项目结束标准应为“老板认可”,如果项目目标明确,那么完成目标即可。

4.      因为从头到尾没有看到老板关于项目质量的要求,那姑且可以将质量要求定为“通过演示使老板认可”,当然,这个“认可”是个不明确的标准,这点只能靠项目经理平时对老板喜好的了解,以及接下来在项目的进行过程中慢慢印证(如原型法)来确定了。

5.      项目属于软件开发项目,还没有开始任何一项工作。

6.      项目的内容是集成以往产品,且大多数为不成熟的外包产品。

7.      项目外部环境比较复杂,无法期盼能从外部获得更多的协助。

8.      该项目属强矩阵管理模式,可用的技术人员很少。

9.      项目经理对资源调配的权力仅限于人力资源。

 

总的来看,这位苦逼的项目经理要做的是一个没有明确的项目指标,资源相当有限的软件项目,难度很高。下面,按照标准的项目管理流程来理顺一下需要做的事情。

启动阶段

第一件要做的事情是明确项目的目标,几乎所有的项目管理书籍都会着重讲项目之初制定《项目章程》的重要性,因为在它里面,规定了项目的目标、可用资源及大概的项目范围。某种程度上讲,《项目章程》类似于在游戏开始的时候选择难度的那一步。无论一个项目的实际情况怎样,项目经理自己一定要有一个用以指导整个项目方向的《项目章程》且内容必须获得客户的认可(即使客户并不签署甚至不知道它的存在)。

在这个项目中,项目经理如果真的想做好项目,那么他就需要找老板认真谈谈,了解老板到底想要什么样的东西,比如都集成哪些东西进来(范围管理),想要做到什么程度(质量管理),可以向老板展示类似的产品或使用PPT、FLASH等做一个模拟界面,口述功能和状态的方法来进行需求分析(很显然,在这个项目中老板就是最大的客户),项目的可用资源都有哪些,还可以获得哪些协助(人力资源管理、成本管理、进度管理),项目干系人都有谁(沟通管理)等等等等,以此来定出一个合理的项目目标,大致的项目范围和明确的可用资源并获得老板的认可。从这个项目的情况来看,一个正确项目目标应该类似于“在3个月内(或X月X日前)将XX系统、XX系统、XX系统集成在一起并通过XX标准的验收”。一份完整的《项目章程》如下图所示:

项目章程

项目名称

 

项目介绍

简略的描述项目范围

项目目标

 

项目产品

可交付物(中间产品及最终产品)

项目经理

甲方项目经理

原部门及职务

联系方式

 

 

 

乙方项目经理

原部门及职务

联系方式

 

 

 

资源条件

主要人员

姓名

职务

XX

XXXXXXX

。。。

。。。

物质

资金、科研设备、办公场所

成本

XX币xx万元

结束时间

X年X月X日

完成标准

按XX规定的验收条款通过验收。

甲方(盖章)

 

乙方(盖章)

 

 

有了以上的内容,项目应该也会有一些大致的思路了,接下来要做的事情就多起来了。九大领域的工作都牵扯到了,不过因为是该项目本质上仍属于内部工作,而且公司领导即不懂也不在乎很多细节的东西,所以有很多是可以省略的,毕竟时间太赶了呀。

规划阶段

项目管理计划,用来指导整个项目的管理工作,项目经理大概心里有个谱就行了,都差不多的东西,正公司也不要求进行项目存档、总结和回顾。

需求收集分析-定义范围-工作分解,这点是非常重要的,首先需求收集方面,要先决定下来项目到底是按照老板的需求来做(极大可能不被市场接受)还是市场的需求来做(可能因资源不够导致项目流产),如果是前者,就靠项目经理来和老板谈心+技术人员或商务人员与产品合作商进行初步沟通来确定。如果是后者,由于专业人员的紧缺,外包给咨询公司或市场调查公司是最优选择,但是按公司的实际情况,恐怕使用现有人员组建需求调研团队是比较现实的。收集好了需求就开始进行分析和筛选,确定做哪些不做哪些,规定好项目的范围,然后根据所要做的工作进行分解,由于人员少时间短,可能工作包的粒度要大一些。

在进度管理方面,需要进行活动定义、排序、估算资源、时间,最后定出进度计划,通常计划以甘特图和网络图的形式展现给项目干系人。这些工作我认为是整个项目管理中最重要,也是最麻烦的。它牵扯到质量、人力资源、成本、沟通、风险等各个方面,在项目管理环境复杂的情况下,由于各类的不确定因素凑在一起,会让项目经理很快就陷入变态的境地。在本项目中,项目经理需要尽快做出一份甘特图并向老板解释其基本概念,要让老板知道这个项目中都要做哪些工作,每个工作包需要什么资源,关键路径是哪条,某个工作包有延迟会对整个项目造成什么样的后果。很多情况下,向老板讲述这些东西并不是真的跟老板探讨项目,而是在汇报的过程中让老板认清现实:项目需要很多部门很多人(包括老板自己)的配合,如果有人不配合,结果就是项目永远都做不完;人和钱永远都不够用;项目经理要和很多人沟通,很辛苦;项目有各种各样的风险,可能超时也可能超支更可能两样都有,但这不能只怪项目经理。

在成本管理方面,根据活动估算出成本后进行汇总,以此来制定整个项目的预算。在本项目中,由于不是软件定制项目,人力成本可以忽略(当然,最好算上,以后总会用得上的),其他成本包括采购额外的软硬件、支出给产品合作商的各类费用、业务招待费用、差旅费用等。日常管理费用不计入项目费用。搞完之后交公司审核,如果有机会的话,最好能争取到预算之内项目经理有审批权,对于整个项目进度的控制大有好处,不然时间全浪费借款和报销上了。

质量管理方面前面已经说过了,主要是看老板的意愿,这点在前期就一定要把握好分寸,否则东西出来货不对板就死翘翘了。如果有必要,就做一份验收标准,这样对项目的双方都有好处。

人力资源管理方面首先制定人力资源计划,规定好在项目中用人的原则问题。在本项目中。。。还是算了吧,就2个开发人员,其余全是打酱油的,都往死里用就行了,也别做什么计划了。

沟通管理方面,本阶段要做沟通计划,用来分清楚如何和各类干系人进行沟通,沟通哪些内容。其实这点在项目管理中是很重要的,因为项目经理最重要也是最常做的工作就是沟通和协调,在大型和复杂项目中尤为如此。在本项目中,做好老板和协同部门的沟通工作几乎成为了最重要的事,但这些事,往往又是无法体现在绩效中的,所以几乎每个项目经理都觉得心累,大致就是如此了。沟通没什么好说的,做不做什么计划都是扯淡,最终还得靠项目经理EQ够高,手段够多,影响力够大才行。

风险管理方面需要制定风险管理计划-识别风险-风险定性分析等工作。其中识别风险这一步,最好找一些不同部门,不同级别的人一起讨论,这样才能从不同的角度来检视一个项目,获得最全面的风险因素。在风险分析的时候,如果能与老板一起进行分析,是最好不过的了,因为老板才知道一个“风险”对于公司来讲到底算不算风险。

在外包管理方面,本项目的工作内容较多,因为其产品线复杂,多数为外包性质,自身技术人员又不够,外包是最可行的解决方案。所要考虑的是,找几个外包商,找哪些外包商,合同如何签订等等,在这方面,可能要专门安排几个人从头到尾进行跟进。而且它与项目成本息息相关,一不小心,就难逃项目失败的罪名。由于公司的整体流程(如合同审核、付款申请等)较慢,因此所有跟外包商的接触工作应尽最大可能尽早进行,商务谈判也应尽量节省时间(因为无论合同价格多少,公司的审核流程一样是那么慢),合同应在质量、进度方面进行严格把控,以免出现因一个外包商的失误而导致整个项目出现返工、延迟等问题。

执行阶段

如果有了详细和周全的规划,执行阶段其实是比较轻松的,just do it!

本阶段的工作包括管理项目执行、实施质量保证、建设项目团队、沟通干系人、实施采购等几项。在该项目中,管理项目执行可以忽略;质量实施方面需要跟外包商规定清楚;建设团队方面,手下就那么些人,能用的还不多,做一个大致的分工,然后各人按照工作包的分配做事就行了;沟通一直都是最重要的,在这个阶段也是一样,需要注意的是,根据项目的执行情况不断调整各个干系人对于项目的期望,也就是说,先打好预防针,免得回头有人抓狂;采购按照既定的计划和合同进行就OK了。

监控阶段

在项目整体管理方面最需要注意的是项目变更,是否进行变更需要通过该项目的项目管理委员会进行审核,所有的变更必须进行记录,并且由双方项目经理签字确认。项目经理在这个时候需要顶住来自各方的压力,对于不合理的变更要坚决抵制,即便是老板亲自下令。如果项目的变更管理失败,那么随之而来的就是范围蔓延,成本超支,人力紧缺,关键路径无法确定,风险加大等各方面的问题,最终项目将彻底走向失控。

范围管理方面,要时刻注意核实项目范围是否在控制之内,软件项目中尤其要注意需求镀金的问题,已经超出项目范围的部分要根据情况进行利弊分析,如果不能立即停止,则想办法尽量多争取资源以便匹配。

进度控制方面,需要随时注意关键路径的变化,在项目进行到中期的时候,关键路径总是会因为各种原因跳来跳去的,TOC理论有助于稳定关键路径,必要时,使用关键链法进行管理。pert计算最好每天都做,随时注意实际进度与基线的差异情况并进行分析和改正。每个里程碑都要进行一次小结,看看问题究竟出在哪里并及时向老板汇报这些问题。

成本控制方面,需要根据绩效测量来分析成本偏差,不过在本项目中无须在意,因为总公司财务部必定将成本控制在一直不够的状态,不太可能有超支的情况发生。

质量管理、沟通管理、风险管理和采购管理,在本阶段按照既定计划进行监控即可,唯一要注意的是风险管理中要持续的进行风险识别和分析,因为随着项目的进行,某些风险会消失,但又会出现新的风险。沟通方面,给每个项目干系人定时发送项目报表是非常必要的。

收尾阶段

项目整体管理方面,如果一切顺利的话,项目顺利通过验收并宣告结束,要做的事情就是将所有文件和数据存档,开总结会等等一系列工作。外包商的合同也需要进行一次归类和汇总。

 

以上是整个项目的一个流水账式的分析,说起来简单做起来难。要做好本项目的要点就是:

1.     明确目标

2.     要资源

3.     做好各方面的沟通

个人感觉,如果在最理想的状态下,项目有可能勉强完成,但在质量、成本和时间方面至少会有一方面无法达到要求,在现实情况下,最终这个项目会以表面成功实际失败而收场。

最后上一张图,与各位苦逼的项目经理共勉。

  

休伦

《最搭》app产品分析

从产品的战略层意义上,如果我们说《唯品会》属于该公司的明星类产品,那《最搭》就是属于该公司扩张性产品(指内部的横向产品,一般出现在明星产品到达天花板效应后,扩展其周边产品,达到企业期待的利益增长的目的。)

产品定位:《最搭》app是一款为女性穿衣搭配提供建议实用的穿衣搭配应用。

起初在各类应用商店的描述中,我以为《最搭》是一款非常重搭配的应用,旨在提供给女性用户更多美美的搭配。然后我体验了《最搭》app之后呢,我觉得《最搭》更像是一款,通过搭配方案对用户进行导购的app,尤其是每个页面无处不在的购物车,让我更加坚定了我的想法。所以我认为《最搭》的最主要任务呢,并不是一款单纯为用户提供搭...

从产品的战略层意义上,如果我们说《唯品会》属于该公司的明星类产品,那《最搭》就是属于该公司扩张性产品(指内部的横向产品,一般出现在明星产品到达天花板效应后,扩展其周边产品,达到企业期待的利益增长的目的。)

产品定位:《最搭》app是一款为女性穿衣搭配提供建议实用的穿衣搭配应用。

起初在各类应用商店的描述中,我以为《最搭》是一款非常重搭配的应用,旨在提供给女性用户更多美美的搭配。然后我体验了《最搭》app之后呢,我觉得《最搭》更像是一款,通过搭配方案对用户进行导购的app,尤其是每个页面无处不在的购物车,让我更加坚定了我的想法。所以我认为《最搭》的最主要任务呢,并不是一款单纯为用户提供搭配方案的app,而是一款背负着导购任务的搭配应用。既然有任务,那就务必为商业负责,所以《最搭》其实跟唯品会一样,最终的目标,还是会希望用户购买产品滴(这点也非常符合扩张性产品的战略意义)。而且《最搭》的非常大的优势是,提供搭配方案,可一键整套进行购买,这也是这个产品的特色之一。

目标用户:主要是20-30岁的年轻女性用户(作者我也是该产品的目标用户哟)

《最搭》app,我对其中的目标用户进行几个维度的划分:

①有购买欲望且粗略有购买目标的用户(有目标地购买)

②有购买欲望但是没有购买目标的用户(无目标地购买)

③无购买欲望但是想查看某类搭配的用户(有目标地查看)

④无购买欲望且随便看看的用户(无目标地查看)

其中发现,《最搭》的产品设计方面,相对较多的比较照顾无目标的用户,让用户在多姿多彩的推送内容里,遇到自己喜欢的内容,从而学习搭或进行购买。只有在“热单品”这个模块中,比较符合有目标的用户的期待。内容较多的针对无目标用户,是可以迅速吸引各类各样的用户,前期积累更多的用户。但是在这个个性化的年代里,是否需要考虑一些有目标的用户的使用呢?是否需要一些筛选途径让有目标的用户可以迅速找到自己想要的搭配类型呢?这里大家在这里可以思考思考,当然这种问题不是下文继续揭晓我的想法哈。

根据提出的疑问,我分析以下个人觉得使用《最搭》的几个经典场景:

1场景:去个非常重要宴会之前,发现自己没有相应场合的搭配,也不清楚这种场合应该使用什么搭配比较好,于是打开了《最搭》想试试能不能买到。

用户内心戏:啊啊啊!主页刷了好久!明星风也找了好久!都找不到宴会类型的搭配呢,要么就是海滩风,要么就是柳丁酷炫风,我什么时候才能找到我要的宴会各类搭配呢呜呜呜!

2场景:夏天来了,觉得非常适合穿比较鲜艳清新的衣服,黄色啊粉色啊等等,可是不知道有什么搭配,于是打开了《最搭》

用户内心戏:嗯,我刷了一个晚上,终于看了一套黄色的搭配,一般般,我心好累!困了,睡了!

3场景:秋天来啦,想找找秋装美美的搭配,于是打开了《最搭》

用户内心戏:春夏秋冬应有尽有,啊啊啊可是。。。我的秋装呢!

总结:分析了这几个典型场景,是我觉得用户会使用搭配类app的最经典的时刻(当然这些场景也是问过很多爱美的女性朋友哒!大家都有相同的感受哒!不是作者的yy哒!)。然后咧,在这几个场景中发现,《最搭》并没有能很好的满足这几个类型的用户。但是根据产品定位的话,《最搭》的终极目标是吸引用户,让用户购买产品。而相对于无目的的用户来说,这类型有目标但是不懂的搭配的用户,往往是这个平台的主要消费群。

综上所述:作者认为呢,可以考虑在主页加上筛选的导航,让用户可以一定情况下能够快速的达到目标,从而推动购买力度,而并非仅仅只是让用户查看搭配而已。今日登陆发现现在《最搭》的版本是2.2.0,所以应该属于用户积累速度较快的一个时期,把握用户目标,深入考虑用户的使用场景,也许能够让《最搭》这个平台更好的达到最终目标。衷心希望《最搭》app越做越好,起码个人非常喜欢它的调性。

▌体验优化

以下是几个作者在体验中,发现的细小用户体验问题,顺便提出一些改进的想法:

1.随着用户量的增加,迭代期可以添加筛选项(具体原因如上,(づ。◕‿‿◕。)づ一点挫见)

2.首页标签导航以及顶部栏可以采用上滑隐藏下滑显示的方式,腾出更多空间展示搭配,提供更加沉浸式的体验。

3.二级页面可以将商品销售的列表提前,且滑动时可以将商品锁定在最上层(参考某电商网页,有多个商品时则只锁定最后一个),拉动用户购买欲望。ps:前几次使用真的不知道资讯下面有购买入口的




4.二级页面的评论条可以锁定在底部,方便用户评论,增加用户粘度,ps:第一次用的时候一直没发现有评论入口。(发现更新了2.2.0之后确实锁定住了,棒棒哒!)

5.二级页面右上角的评论入口显得有点多余,因为评论之后也会自动跳转到评论页面,如果用户有兴趣看评论的话可以点击查看更多评论呢。这里的评论入口建议去掉or换成喜欢的icon,可以一键喜欢。



6.个人主页的心愿单,有较多的改正点。

/添加心愿单之前:文案不明,整个app中没有任何地方有提及心愿单,一度不知道心愿单是什么意思,能干什么。心愿单首次添加提示页面,表达不明,没有引起用户添加心愿单的冲动。

改进方案:文案告诉用户是什么,用什么用并且吸引用户去添加心愿单。

/添加心愿单时:

a:随机加入心愿单的时候,跳出的产品,大多文不对题,图文不符。

改进方案:审核图文的时候要严谨。


b:添加了商品之后,再次加入心愿单的入口有点深,不方便用户进行二次添加。

改进方案:增加加入心愿单的快速入口

/添加心愿单后

个人中心突然被心愿单商品的插入分割成两部分,显得心愿单商品非常的抢眼,且页面不美观,还没办法改变这种展示方式。

改进方案:进行常规展示,进入心愿单后才看到商品。



分析人:huron 2015/9

如有不妥,望提出交流哈。觉得好的可以点个赞~摸摸哒(づ。◕‿‿◕。)づ



麻木,
稍稍嘚瑟了下,分析了美团外卖和...

稍稍嘚瑟了下,分析了美团外卖和饿了么。只是站在表面粗浅的分析,但是他们之间的本质还是表达清楚了。

稍稍嘚瑟了下,分析了美团外卖和饿了么。只是站在表面粗浅的分析,但是他们之间的本质还是表达清楚了。

小一

饿了么App交互设计分析

我在iamue网的原创文章《饿了么App交互设计分析》,热烈欢迎大家来吐槽讨论。(●'◡'●)

http://www.iamue.com/?p=8417

我在iamue网的原创文章《饿了么App交互设计分析》,热烈欢迎大家来吐槽讨论。(●'◡'●)

http://www.iamue.com/?p=8417

得有店
梁筑

建筑结构优化设计案例分析

【书 名】建筑结构优化设计案例分析
【作 者】孙芳垂,汪祖培,冯康曾著
【出版社】北京市:中国建筑工业出版社
【出版日期】2011.01


推广赢积分

***************************************

免费规范软件,有兴趣的可以看看。

http://book.gisroad.com/OnlineRead/Down.aspx?pc=xrt2445

***************************************

下载地址:

............

资源收集于网络。

支持梁筑博客,多评论、分享或帮点击文章下的广...

【书 名】建筑结构优化设计案例分析
【作 者】孙芳垂,汪祖培,冯康曾著
【出版社】北京市:中国建筑工业出版社
【出版日期】2011.01

建筑结构优化设计案例分析 - 梁 - 梁筑

 

推广赢积分

***************************************

免费规范软件,有兴趣的可以看看。

http://book.gisroad.com/OnlineRead/Down.aspx?pc=xrt2445

***************************************

下载地址:

............

资源收集于网络。

支持梁筑博客,多评论、分享或帮点击文章下的广告,谢谢。


同步自网易博客 (查看原文)

铁牛哥

什么是网络视频直播营销

网络视频直播是指人们可以通过网络直接收看到远端正在进行的现场音视频实况,比如会议、培训、赛事等。网络视频直播的核心思想是利用互联网高速传输技术实现对音视频信号的实时传输,并且能够使在远方的人通过互联网实时流畅地观看。


随着互联网技术的不断发展,网络已成为发展速度最快而且越来越占据主要地位的媒体。而随着人们获取信息的要求越来越高,已不再局限于只通过网络了解文字信息,更多的用户希望通过网络获取音视频信息,实现新闻发布会、产品发布会、体育比赛、教学交流实况、商业宣传、庆典活动等等的现场实况。


由于互联网具有直观、快速,表现形式好、内容丰富、交互性强、地域不受限制、...

网络视频直播是指人们可以通过网络直接收看到远端正在进行的现场音视频实况,比如会议、培训、赛事等。网络视频直播的核心思想是利用互联网高速传输技术实现对音视频信号的实时传输,并且能够使在远方的人通过互联网实时流畅地观看。

 

随着互联网技术的不断发展,网络已成为发展速度最快而且越来越占据主要地位的媒体。而随着人们获取信息的要求越来越高,已不再局限于只通过网络了解文字信息,更多的用户希望通过网络获取音视频信息,实现新闻发布会、产品发布会、体育比赛、教学交流实况、商业宣传、庆典活动等等的现场实况。

 

由于互联网具有直观、快速,表现形式好、内容丰富、交互性强、地域不受限制、受众可划分等众多优点,加强了商家做广告宣传的推广效果。同时现场直播完成后,还可以随时为读者继续提供重播、点播,有效延长了直播的时间和空间,发挥直播内容的最大价值。基于以上种种优势,网络视频直播营销逐渐成为商家网络营销中最主要的营销模式。

 

目前我国的网络视频直播大致可分为两大类,一是通过网络观看电视信号节目,例如各种体育比赛和文艺活动的直播,这类直播是通过采集电视模拟信号再转化成数字信号输入电脑,实时上传到网站工人观看;另一类型则是真正意义上的网络视频直播,它是基于在现场架设独立的信号采集设备,再通过网络上传到服务器,发布到网站供人观看。

 

后者与前者的最大区别在于直播的自主性和独立性,商家可以通过自身需要设计直播内容,比如产品发布会、产品体验直播、公司形象宣传、公司年会等不同类型的公司宣传活动。在网络视频直播营销兴起的一年多时间里,也涌现了许多优秀的营销案例。例如巴黎欧丽雅通过直播戛纳电影节众明星在化妆间用欧莱雅产品化妆的全过程,使其天猫商城多款产品售罄;杜蕾斯通过直播100对情侣在床上的活动的创意,虽然获得了许多差评,不过还实现了高关注度的目的;周杰伦直播玩游戏拉近了与粉丝们的距离;某草根主播直播吃饭收获大量关注,一夜爆红......

 

网络视频直播营销从盛行到现在才一年多时间,就已经成就了如此多的成功营销案例,可以其魅力之大,效果之客观。然而商家朋友们不要盲目从众,在做自己的直播强要明确一点,网络视频直播只是一种播放渠道,其关键点还内容的策划。其实网络直播可以看成是一场带音视频的事件营销,只有内容做得好才能吸引到眼球,才能真正地实现业绩飞涨的目的。

 

深圳心思维网络视频直播营销策划公司是一家主要为企业提供网络视频直播营销策划服务的网络视频直播营销策划服务公司,我们拥有最好的网络视频直播营销策划创意,咨询电话:4000-998-332。网址:www.xswxcq.com,www.tieniuseo.com

 


OneNote

追讨欠款防止超过诉讼时效期间

在看《税法相关法律》里诉讼时效中断这个知识点的时候,郭帅提到了比如追讨欠款在诉讼期间内债权人主张债权可以造成诉讼时效中断。

不禁联想到一个问题,在企业的日常经营活动中是否应该有一个及时追款的制度,防止欠款超过诉讼时效丧失胜诉权的问题,降低风险。于是百度了下找到了一个很有意思的案例分析,转载如下:

案例描述:

在一个项目中,A公司是某项目的集成商,项目比较复杂,涉及到不同品牌的多类型软件产品和硬件产品。Z公司则是大部分硬件产品的供应商。项目实施过程中,由于不同品牌的软硬件兼容问题,导致安装调试未到如期完成,项目周期延长。
Z公司一直认为,回款是要随着项目进度进行的。虽然Z公司与A公司签署的合同中并不以项...

在看《税法相关法律》里诉讼时效中断这个知识点的时候,郭帅提到了比如追讨欠款在诉讼期间内债权人主张债权可以造成诉讼时效中断。

不禁联想到一个问题,在企业的日常经营活动中是否应该有一个及时追款的制度,防止欠款超过诉讼时效丧失胜诉权的问题,降低风险。于是百度了下找到了一个很有意思的案例分析,转载如下:

案例描述:

在一个项目中,A公司是某项目的集成商,项目比较复杂,涉及到不同品牌的多类型软件产品和硬件产品。Z公司则是大部分硬件产品的供应商。项目实施过程中,由于不同品牌的软硬件兼容问题,导致安装调试未到如期完成,项目周期延长。
Z公司一直认为,回款是要随着项目进度进行的。虽然Z公司与A公司签署的合同中并不以项目验收为付款条件,但Z公司了解到项目没有完成,反觉得付款迟延是很正常的行为,并没有及时正式催款。
但由于最终用户的人事变动,项目一拖再拖。其间,为了让项目尽快完工,Z公司投入了很大的人力、物力资源。项目刚刚完成后,A公司又面临改组,其大股东出让股权,并更换了法定代表人。而A公司此时还没有支付Z公司货款。
为了防止人事变更所带来的不确定性,Z公司决定马上起诉A公司追索货款。这时候,Z公司才发现,距离原定的付款期限,已经超过两年的诉讼时效期间。


Z公司是否还有可能赢得诉讼呢?

律师点评:

在诉讼时效期间,债权人每主张一次债权,诉讼时效都可以再从头计算一次。
同时,需要说明的是,超出诉讼时效使得债权人丧失的是实体权利,债权人依然可以起诉,并且,如果在诉讼过程中被告没有以诉讼时效抗辩的,则债权人仍可能赢得诉讼。

诉讼时效是个非常重要的概念,对于追款有很重要的现实意义。但在IT业界,很多人都像Z公司一样,认为项目没有结束的时候,款项未收回也是正常的,无意中拖过了诉讼时效。其实,如果Z公司在日常管理中,建立一套追款制度即可以避免诉讼时效的错过。

具体支招:

有个法律幽默笑话,说一客户拖欠公司款项而公司没有证据怎么办,于是给客户发函,声称“贵公司欠款300万,请及时偿还”。客户一看急了,马上回函“我公司只欠100万,不是300万”,于是回函作为证据,公司马上起诉。


在现实中,不见得有这么简单的解决方式,但这个幽默笑话所反映的思路仍然可取。目前Z公司所面临的局面,前期只能以谈判磋商为主,尽量在双方没有直接冲突和对抗的时候,可以对还款计划达成共识并书面确认,同时留下了新的证据和重新计算诉讼时效。

Z公司也可以寻找双方之间的往来邮件、函件、传真等,看是否有过催款的证据,一旦证据成立,也会发生诉讼时效重新计算的法律后果。

当然,要想不出现这样被动的局面,最好的办法还是及时追款。一般来说,建议企业在款项迟延支付超过一周或两周,即委托律师事务所发出律师函,限定时间要求债务人作出还款承诺。如债务人没有还款的诚意或不能履行还款承诺,企业即可以考虑尽快提起诉讼。

特别需要提醒的是,企业催款一定要留下充分的证据。有的企业,仅仅是通过电话表述过希望客户还款的意愿,无法留下催款证据;或有的企业通过邮件催款,使得证据的效力不确定,这些都会影响诉讼时效是否超期的判断。所以,建议企业最好通过EMS等有明确签收人的方式来发送催款文件,以便一旦发生纠纷,有明确的证据作为诉讼时效中断的依据。
10jb

2012级电商毕业论文选题

一、跨境电商

1、跨境电商文献计量图谱分析

2、泰国(马来西亚、越南)电子商务的跨文化影响因素研究

3、南宁市跨境电商产业聚集的现状与对策研究

4、跨境电子商务风险控制研究

二、农村电商

5、农村电子商务文献计量图谱分析

6、农村电子商务解决方案的比较研究

7、广西农村电子商务发展现状与对策研究

三、电商评价指标

8、电子商务发展评价指标体系比较研究

9、网络信息消费评价指标体系研究

10、南宁市跨境电子商务发展评价指标体系研究

四、电商案例分析

11、南宁市企业电子商务应用失败案例研究

12、南宁市商贸企业电子商务O2O模式应用案例研究


选题仅供参考,...

一、跨境电商

1、跨境电商文献计量图谱分析

2、泰国(马来西亚、越南)电子商务的跨文化影响因素研究

3、南宁市跨境电商产业聚集的现状与对策研究

4、跨境电子商务风险控制研究

二、农村电商

5、农村电子商务文献计量图谱分析

6、农村电子商务解决方案的比较研究

7、广西农村电子商务发展现状与对策研究

三、电商评价指标

8、电子商务发展评价指标体系比较研究

9、网络信息消费评价指标体系研究

10、南宁市跨境电子商务发展评价指标体系研究

四、电商案例分析

11、南宁市企业电子商务应用失败案例研究

12、南宁市商贸企业电子商务O2O模式应用案例研究


选题仅供参考,鼓励自拟题目

潮涨潮落--海风船长的博客

Damages For Late Redelivery

Damages For Late Redelivery

Contributed by Ince & Co

October 29 2008


Facts
Claim
Arbitration
Court of Appeal Decision
House of Lords Decision
Comment


Much debate has been generated by the decisions of Justice Clarke at first instance and the Court of Appeal in the case of Shipping Inc v Mercator...

Damages For Late Redelivery

Contributed by Ince & Co

October 29 2008

Facts
Claim
Arbitration
Court of Appeal Decision
House of Lords Decision
Comment


Much debate has been generated by the decisions of Justice Clarke at first instance and the Court of Appeal in the case of Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas).(1) The House of Lords delivered its decision on the case on July 9 2008.

Facts

The Achilleas had been chartered to Transfield for a five/seven-month charter with option (which was in the event exercised) to extend for a further similar period. The charter rate under the extended charter was $16,450 per day pro rata. On the facts, the latest day for redelivery of the vessel was midnight on May 2 2004. The charterers gave notices of redelivery including a 10-day definite notice on April 20. In anticipation of such redelivery, on April 21 the shipowners fixed the vessel for a four/six-month period charter with Cargill at the rate of $39,500 per day with a laycan of April 28 to May 8.

In the event, the vessel did not load its final cargo until April 24 and was not redelivered until May 11. In the intervening period there was a substantial fall in the dry market. On May 5, when it became apparent to the shipowners that the vessel was not going to make the cancelling date under the Cargill fixture, the shipowners approached Cargill to obtain an extension of the cancelling date. This was agreed only in return for an $8,000 per day reduction in the hire rate, a reduction which was reflective of the market at that time.

The vessel completed its last voyage, was redelivered by the charterers and was delivered to Cargill on May 11.

Claim

The shipowners claimed for their loss of profit on the Cargill fixture for breach by the charterers in failing to redeliver the vessel by May 2. The charterers disputed this, their position being that while they accepted they were responsible for the loss during the nine day overrun period assessed at the difference between the market and charter rate, they should not be responsible for the losses suffered by the shipowners over the entire Cargill charter. The parties agreed between themselves quantum so that on the shipowners’ case the damages payable would be about $1.365 million (equivalent to about 180 days at $8,000 per day less brokerage), whereas on the charterers’ case an amount of about $158,000 would be payable.

Arbitration

In a two-to-one decision, London arbitrators ruled in the shipowners’ favour and awarded damages in the amount of $1.365 million. The majority held that missing a subsequent fixture was a “not unlikely” result arising from late redelivery of the vessel, taking the view that in “today’s market”, with its ease of communication and higher emphasis on maintaining vessels in almost continuous employment, such “not unlikely results are known, recognized and accepted hazards of late redelivery”. In addition, the majority held that the type of loss suffered by the shipowners, being compelled to renegotiate the terms of the subsequent fixture, was “within the contemplation of the parties as a not unlikely result of the breach”.

In light of the findings of fact made by the majority arbitrators, Clarke concluded that the shipowners’ loss of profit could legitimately be treated as arising naturally from the charterers’ breach and was therefore recoverable in full in the amount claimed under the first limb of the rule in Hadley v Baxendale.

Court of Appeal Decision

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was given by Lord Justice Rix. He took the view that there was nothing wrong with the manner in which the majority arbitrators had approached the issue of remoteness. He observed that the nature of the chartering market was at all times “an open book” to charterers – “it was their business, in which they were experienced”. He noted that both the shipowners and the charterers were in the same business, and that a charterer of time-charterered tonnage knows that a new fixture is very likely to be entered into by the owner of its chartered vessel so as to follow as closely as possible on the redelivery of the vessel.

In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal came to the same conclusion as the first-instance court and the majority arbitrators.

House of Lords Decision

The appellate committee of the House of Lords which heard the appeal was made up of Lords Hoffman, Hope, Roger and Walker and Baroness Hale. All five members of the committee gave speeches allowing the appeal (in the case of Hale, with real reluctance) and finding in favour of the charterers. The basis upon which they each put the decision was not the same. However, running throughout all five speeches was the consistent theme that the loss of profit for which the shipowners had claimed was not a loss that could, properly considered, be said to be the not unlikely result of the breach by the charterers in failing to redeliver the vessel on time. Their view was that the loss was of an exceptional or unusual nature and one for which it was not contemplated by the parties that liability would result.

The decision is of potentially wide application to the law of contract and it is worth considering each speech in turn.

Lord Hoffman
Hoffman recognized that there was no authority directly on point, but appeared to view the lack of any authority as being more supportive of the charterers’ position, commenting that: “there is no case in which the question now in issue has been raised. But that in itself may be significant… Nowhere is there a suggestion of even a theoretical possibility of damages for the loss of a following fixture".

He approached the issue by considering that it would be logical to found liability for damages upon the intention of the parties which was to be objectively ascertained by interpreting the contract as a whole in its commercial setting. He regarded this exercise of interpreting the contract as a question of law.

His explanation for this approach was that because all contractual liabilities are voluntarily undertaken, it would be wrong in principle to hold someone liable for risks for which people entering into a contract in their particular market would not reasonably be considered to have undertaken. He had in mind that the view of responsibilities and risks which parties take will impact upon the terms of the contract and in particular the price to be paid. He put it in the following way: “Anyone asked to assume a large and unpredictable risk will require some premium in exchange. A rule of law which imposes liability upon a party for a risk which he reasonably thought was excluded gives the other party something for nothing.”

Hoffman drew on his own speech in the earlier House of Lords case of Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd,(2) which dealt with the proper assessment of damages that flowed from a valuer’s negligent valuation of a property. That approach involved asking, as a first step, whether the loss for which compensation is sought is of a “kind” or “type” for which the contract breaker ought fairly to be taken to have accepted responsibility. If the answer to that question were “yes”, the next step would be to ascertain the damages which would put the innocent party, so far as possible, in the same position as if the contract had been performed.

In determining whether a loss was of a type or kind for which a contract breaker could be treated as having assumed responsibility, Hoffman considered that the principle to be applied was to determine what would have been reasonable and would have been regarded as significant by the contracting party for the purposes of the risk he was undertaking. Applying this to the facts of The Achilleas, Hoffman held as follows:

“I think it is clear that [the parties] would have considered losses arising from the loss of the following fixture a type or kind of loss for which the charterer was not assuming responsibility. Such a risk would be completely unquantifiable, because although the parties would regard it as likely that the owners would at some time during the currency of the charter enter into a forward fixture, they would have no idea when that would be done or what its length or other terms would be. If it was clear to the owners that the last voyage was bound to overrun and put the following fixture at risk, it was open to them to refuse to undertake it. What this shows is that the purpose of the provision of timely redelivery in the charterparty is to enable the ship to be at the full disposal of the owners from the redelivery date. If the charterer’s orders will defeat this right, the owner may reject them. If the orders are accepted and the last voyage overruns, the owner is entitled to be paid for the overrun at the market rate. All this will be known to both parties. It does not require any knowledge of the owner’s arrangements for the next charter.”

In conclusion, he found that: “the findings of the arbitrator and the commercial background to the agreement are sufficient to make it clear that the charterer cannot reasonably be regarded as having assumed the risk of the owner’s loss of profit on the following charter” .

Lord Hope
Hope acknowledged that he was at first inclined to find in favour of the shipowners, but changed his mind after considering the draft speeches of Hoffman, Roger and Walker. Hope considered that the “assumption of responsibility” forms the basis of the law of remoteness of damage in contract, and that the key question should be “whether the loss was a type of loss for which the party can reasonably be assumed to have assumed responsibility”.

While he recognized that it was within the parties’ contemplation that loss would be suffered generally by reason of late redelivery, and that this would be loss of use at the market rate as compared with the charter rate, he considered that the charterers could not be expected to know how the shipowners would deal with the charterers under any subsequent fixture. This, he considered, was something over which the charterers had no control at the time of entering into the contract and was completely unpredictable. As a result, he considered that there can be no presumption that the party in breach has assumed responsibility for any loss caused by delay where the loss “is not the product of the market itself, which can be contemplated, but results from arrangements entered into between the shipowners and the new charterers, which cannot”. Therefore, in his view, assumption of responsibility cannot be expected to arise in respect of matters over which a party could have no control and could not quantify. In order for there to be an assumption of responsibility, Hope considered that the contract breaker would need to have “some information that will enable him to assess the extent of any liability”.

Lord Walker
Walker also appeared to give support for the concept that the assumption of responsibility is the critical test, but did so in terms that the underlying question should be: “what was the common basis on which the parties were contracting?” He put it in the following terms: “It is also a question of what the contracting parties must be taken to have in mind having regard to the nature and object of their business transaction.”

In considering the facts of The Achilleas, he considered that while it was open to the arbitrators to conclude that for the shipowners to miss a subsequent fixture was a “not unlikely” result of the delay, it did not follow that the charterers should be liable for an exceptionally large loss when the market fell suddenly and sharply (explained as being by about 20%). He placed emphasis on a remark by Rix in the Court of Appeal that “it requires extremely volatile conditions to create the situation which occurred here”.

In considering the majority arbitrators’ decision, he disagreed with their approach that the appropriate test was that the type of loss claimed was foreseeable (in the sense of being a “not unlikely” result). He considered this approach to be an error of law. Instead, in his view, what mattered was:

“whether the common intention of reasonable parties to a charterparty of this sort would have been that in the event of a relatively short delay in redelivery an extraordinary loss, measured over the whole term of a renewed fixture…was sufficiently likely to result from the breach of contract to make it proper to hold that the loss flowed naturally from the breach or that loss of that kind should have been within …contemplation.”

Walker, like Hope, appeared to place significance on the fact that the charterers had no knowledge or control of the new fixture entered into by the shipowners.

Lord Roger
Roger took a slightly different approach. He considered that the basic point was that in the absence of special knowledge a party entering into a contract can be supposed to contemplate only the losses which are likely to result from the breach in question. It is those losses, he considered, for which a party in breach would be held responsible – the rationale being that if other losses had not been in contemplation, the parties would have had no opportunity to provide for them.

Roger, like Walker, noted Rix’s remark that it “requires extremely volatile market conditions to create the situation which occurred”. In Roger’s view, this indicated that “the extent of the relevant rise and fall in the market within a short time was actually unusual”, and that the shipowners’ losses stemmed from “that unusual occurrence”.

In other words, Roger concluded that the unusual occurrence of the extremely volatile fluctuations in market conditions was not a kind of loss that could be said to be the “not unlikely” result of the breach. He also placed reliance on the fact that the shipowners’ dealings with Cargill were not known by the charterers.

In the course of his speech, Roger did recognize that there might be some instances where charterers might face an exposure for the sort of loss that the shipowners were claiming. The first possible scenario he gave was where a charterer could reasonably contemplate that a late redelivery of a vessel of a particular type in a certain area of the world at a certain season would mean that the market for its services would be poor. In such circumstances, Roger recognized that the shipowners might have a claim for some general sums for loss of business, though that would not necessarily mean that a particular loss on a particular contract would be recoverable. The second was a situation where, when the charterparty was entered into, the shipowners had drawn the charterers’ attention to the existence of a forward charter of many months’ duration for which the vessel had to be delivered on a particular date. In such case the charterers might face an exposure.

Baroness Hale
The last speech was given by Hale. Like Hope, she had initially taken the view that the appeal should be dismissed and that the shipowners should succeed in their claim. However, she was prepared to find in the charterers’ favour upon the narrow basis that the loss in question was the result of an extremely volatile market, which was unusual. Hale indicated that she did not necessarily agree with the idea of introducing into the law of contract the concept of the scope of duty (involving notions of assumption of responsibility) which has been developed in the law of negligent professional services. She put it as follows: “The rule in Hadley v Baxendale asks what the parties must be taken to have had in their contemplation, rather than what they actually had in their contemplation, but the criterion by which this is judged is a factual one.”

In concluding, she said that: “If this appeal is to be allowed, as to which I continue to have doubts, I would prefer it to be allowed on the narrower ground identified by Lord Roger, leaving the wider ground to be fully explored in another case and another context.”

Comment

Undoubtedly, there will now be much reflection on the decision of the House of Lords and consideration of its wider implications. On its face, it seems that the decision may have a significant impact in all cases where damages for breach of contract are in issue, and not simply in the narrow case that was before the House of Lords, given the application by some of the lords of the concept of assumption of responsibility to the determination of remoteness of contractual damages. The extent of the impact will depend on how the decision is interpreted by the courts in the future, and in particular what is determined to be the ratio of the decision. This may not be straightforward.

Reviewing the speeches of the lords as a whole, it seems they were influenced by two principal factors. The first was that there was a general market expectation that a loss of the sort claimed by the shipowners was not one for which the charterers would be responsible and that, against this commercial background, it would not be appropriate to impose liability on the charterers. Second, the particular loss had arisen because of an extremely volatile market situation that could be regarded as unusual, and not as “not unlikely” to result from the breach.

As to the first point, the introduction of the concept of assumption of responsibility (by Hoffman and Hope, with some support from Walker) in determining the kind of losses for which a contract breaker will be liable is, perhaps, one that may be regarded as unusual in the context of commercial contracts. This is particularly so where the contractual obligations in question involve no obligations akin to a duty of care.

In relation to the second point, it would appear that the lords equated the “unusual” losses in issue with a particularly lucrative contract which could not be said to be within the reasonable contemplation of the parties in the absence of specific knowledge. However, if this were so, it would ignore the fact that the losses in question were the result of movements in the market and not any particularly special transaction entered into by the shipowners with their new charterers (the renegotiation of the Cargill charterparty rate simply reflected the then market rate). Given the lords’ acceptance that, being experienced shipping businesspeople, the parties would be aware of the volatility of the shipping market, the result might be viewed as surprising. This is particularly true given that the lords also accepted that, in general, where a kind of loss was foreseeable it was recoverable, even though the extent of the loss may not have been.

Arguably, the decision suggests that a loss due to ordinary market fluctuations is a different kind or type of loss from a loss due to extraordinary market fluctuations, and that on the facts before them they were dealing with an extraordinary loss. If so, this may raise some interesting issues (particularly in the current uncertain economic climate) as to when an ordinary market fluctuation becomes an extraordinary one.

While the judgments of the lower courts and the decisions of the majority arbitrators may have come as a surprise (in particular to the charterers), it would seem on initial review that the decision of the House of Lords may introduce a distinct degree of uncertainty in determining the consequences of a breach of contract. Ultimately, it may be that the decision is one of public policy, which the law of remoteness is intended to reflect, and will have a narrow application. Only time will tell.

For further information on this topic please contact Michael Volikas at Ince & Co by telephone (+44 20 7623 2011) or by fax (+44 20 7623 3225) or by email (michael.volikas@incelaw.com).

Endnotes

(1) [2006] EWHC 3030 and [2007] EWCA Civ 901.

(2) [1997] AC191.

潮涨潮落--海风船长的博客

Letters of Indemnity - Delivery without Production

March 18 2009


Facts
Decision
Comment


In The Bremen Max(1) the High Court considered whether the wording of a standard form letter of indemnity (LOI) required security to be provided by the charterers when the vessel had already been released from arrest by the vessel's owners providing security...

March 18 2009

Facts
Decision
Comment


In The Bremen Max(1) the High Court considered whether the wording of a standard form letter of indemnity (LOI) required security to be provided by the charterers when the vessel had already been released from arrest by the vessel's owners providing security. The decision also highlights the importance of the shipowner delivering cargo to the correct party as identified in the LOI.

Facts

On April 18 2007 the Bremen Max was chartered by its owners to COSCO Bulk Carriers Co Ltd (Cosbulk). The vessel was then sub-chartered under back-to-back charters to:

  • the claimant, Farenco Shipping Co Ltd;
  • the defendant, Daebo Shipping Co Ltd;
  • the third party Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S; and
  • the fourth party Deiulemar Shipping SpA.

In March 2008 a cargo of iron ore was loaded at Tubar?o, Brazil for carriage to and delivery at Bourgas, Bulgaria. Bills of lading were issued by the owners in respect of the cargo with named consignee "to the order of HSH Nordbank AG, London". The notify party was Kremikovtzi, a Bulgarian steel producer, and its agent at Bourgas.

On arrival at Bourgas in late March 2008, the bills of lading were unavailable and the owners were requested to deliver the cargo without production of the bills. Clause 68 of each charterparty imposed an obligation on the owners "to allow discharge and release the cargo on board" without production of bills of lading, against an LOI issued by the charterer. An LOI was provided by each charterer to its disponent owner in the following terms:

"The above cargo was shipped on the above ship by …. but the bill of lading has not arrived and we … hereby request you to deliver the said cargo to KREMIKOVTZI AD, SOFIA – BOTUNETZ at PORT OF BOURGAS, BULGARIA without production of the original bill of lading.

In consideration of your complying with our above request, we hereby agree as follows:

1. To indemnify you…in respect of any liability, loss, damage or expense… which you may sustain by reason of delivering the cargo in accordance with our request.

2. ….

3. If, in connection with the delivery of the cargo as aforesaid, the ship…. should be arrested or…. the arrest or detention thereof be threatened... to provide on demand such bail or other security as may be required to prevent such arrest or detention or to secure the release of such ship or property…

4. If the place at which we have asked you to make delivery is a bulk liquid or gas terminal or facility, or another ship, lighter or barge, then delivery to such terminal, facility, ship, lighter or barge shall be deemed to be delivery to the party to whom we have requested you to make such delivery."

The cargo was discharged at Bourgas, but there was no evidence that the cargo was in fact delivered to Kremikovtzi. Subsequently Stemcor UK Ltd informed the owners that it was the holder of the bills of lading and that it intended to commence proceedings against the vessel/owners in order to obtain security for its mis-delivery claim in the amount of $11 million. The owners informed Cosbulk of that threat and the information was passed down the line of charterers. In breach of their obligations, neither Cosbulk nor any of the other charterers provided security. As a result of this, on August 23 2008 Stemcor arrested the vessel in Australia. On the same day the owners put up security for $11 million to secure the vessel's release. The owners subsequently obtained a Rule B attachment against Cosbulk's assets pending provision of substitute security by Cosbulk to Stemcor/owners. In order to prevent its assets being similarly attached by Cosbulk, Farenco put up substitute security directly to Stemcor and called upon Daebo to do the same. It was Daebo's failure to do so that resulted in Farenco issuing proceedings against Daebo on October 24 2008 (which in turn issued Part 20 proceedings against Norden), claiming a mandatory injunction compelling Daebo to provide security pursuant to an LOI.

Justice Aiken granted interim mandatory relief on October 30 2008, requiring Norden, failing which Daebo, to provide the substitute security. He also ordered that various preliminary issues be heard, including: (i) whether the obligation in clause 3 of the LOI to provide such bail or other security was no longer a current obligation, the release of the vessel having already been secured; and (ii) whether the undertakings provided were conditional upon delivery to Kremikovtzi.

On receipt of the court's order, Norden brought Part 20 proceedings against Deiulemar. The preliminary issues were heard before Justice Teare on November 6 2008.

Decision

Was obligation to provide such bail or other security a current obligation?
Deiulemar argued that the obligation to provide security had been discharged when the owners put up security to release the ship. It submitted that since the owners had provided security, it was not possible for any charterer to put up "such bail or other security as may be required to prevent such arrest… or to secure the release of such ship", and that an order for specific performance should not be made because the court should not order a person to do the impossible.

The court rejected Deiulemar's submission that the right to specific performance had expired and held that it remained under an obligation to put up security. The intention and commercial purpose of clause 3 of the LOI was that the owners should not have to suffer the arrest of the vessel, and that any bail or other security to prevent the arrest of the vessel should be put up by the charterer and not the owners. While the owners' action in putting up security had the effect of ending the detention of the vessel, and to that extent mitigated the loss caused by the charterers' breach, the charterers' obligation to put up bail or other security had already accrued and the owners' action could not discharge that obligation or provide the charterers with a defence to their breach of that obligation.

However, the court did add that this analysis might be different in circumstances where the owners, without making a demand of the charterers to provide bail or other security to prevent an arrest or secure a release, themselves provided bail for that purpose. In that situation, no obligation of any charterer to provide bail or other security would have accrued before the vessel was released from arrest.

Were undertakings provided conditional upon delivery to Kremikovtzi?
Having established that the obligation in the LOI to provide security remained current, the next issue was whether the owners were entitled to such specific performance without proving that that they had delivered to the entity named in the LOI. The court agreed with Deiulemar, saying that clause 68 imposed an obligation upon the owners to "allow discharge and release the cargo" against the LOI. Under the charterparty it was the charterer's responsibility to discharge the cargo; however, it was the owners' responsibility to release, in the sense of deliver the cargo ashore. The court explained that 'discharge' and 'delivery' are different concepts – 'discharge' is the movement of the cargo "over the ship's rail" and 'delivery' is the transfer of possession of the cargo to a person ashore.

The person to whom the cargo was to be released or delivered without production of the bills of lading was to be found in the LOI. The LOI contained a clear request to deliver the cargo to Kremikovtzi and an equally clear agreement by the owners to comply with that request in return for the undertakings given by the charterer. Since the undertakings were given in return for the owners complying with the charterer's request that the cargo be delivered to a named receiver without production of the bills of lading, and not to anyone else without production of the bills of lading, it follows that if the owners delivered to anybody else without production of the bills of lading, the charterer's undertakings were not engaged. This principle was underlined by the opening words of the undertakings in clause 3, which required the arrest or threatened arrest to be "in connection with the delivery of the cargo as aforesaid".

Comment

In light of this decision, shipowners should assess what measures need to be taken to obtain appropriate verification from charterers that the person to whom delivery is to be made is the person named in the LOI and be able to show that they did so. They should also ensure that appropriate demands have been made to charterers before security is provided to bill of lading holders. Those issuing LOIs may want to state clearly what is to happen when shipowners take emergency action to secure the release of a ship.

For further information on this topic please contact Ted Graham or Victoria Waite at Ince & Co by telephone (+44 20 7481 0010) or by fax (+44 20 7481 4968) or by email (ted.graham@incelaw.com or victoria.waite@incelaw.com ).

Endnotes

(1) Farenco Shipping Co Ltd v Daebo Shipping Co Ltd [2008] EWHC 2755.

为了方便大家学习:先放上中文版本的摘要:

  案件摘要:租船合同-系列转租-依保函无单放货-船东错误交货-船舶被扣押-承租人依据保函是否应向“船东”承担赔偿责任。

涉及船舶:“不莱梅”号(the “Bremen Max”)

案件名称:Farenco Shipping Co. Ltd v. Daebo Co. Ltd

审理法院:英国高等法院商事审判庭

审理日期:2008年11月28日

案件编号:【2008】EWHC 2755

 

                                                     案 情 简 介

      “不莱梅”号(the “Bremen Max”)是一艘散装货轮,其船舶所有人为Pavey Service Ltd。船舶所有人将该船租给中国中远散装货运公司(以下简称“中散公司”),其租船格式合同为NYPE 1946。中散公司租船后将船舶又以相同的格式合同转租给Farenco公司,Farenco 公司又转租给Daebo公司。该承租人又以背靠背的形式转租,此后发生了连续转租。这些承租人分别为Norden公司和Deiulemar公司。这些转租合同都是相同的格式合同。

 

     2008年3月,该船舶装载了一船饲料自巴西图巴朗港(Tubarao)运往保加利亚的布尔加斯港(Bourgas),船舶所有人签发了十套正本提单。船舶抵达目的港后,因承租人未拿到正本提单,遂向船舶所有人申请无单放货。根据租船合同第68条规定,允许船舶所有人根据保函无单放货。该款规定:“一旦在卸货港收不到正本提单,船长或船舶所有人允许依照承租人提供的保函卸货,但保函的措辞须为船东保赔协会推荐的格式。”于是,每个承租人都向其租船合同的“船舶所有人”按照该规定提供了保函。本案涉及的是Farenco公司与Daebo公司之间的合同关系。

 

    Daebo公司向Farenco公司提供的保函的措辞是:

   “由Companhia Vale Do Rio Doce公司将上述货物装到上述船舶,收货人为‘the order of HSH Nordbank AG,London’,交货地为保加利亚布尔加斯港,但是因尚未收到提单,我们,Daebo Shipping Co. Ltd,在此请求您在布尔加斯港无需其出示正本提单将上述货物交给Kremikovtzi AD Sofia, Bolunetz。

   鉴于您遵守我们的上述请求,我们同意如下条款:

   1、因为根据我们的请求交付货物而造成的责任、损失、损害或不管任何性质的费用,(我们将)予以赔偿,使你们无害;

   2、若因交付上述货物对您或您的雇员、代理人提起任何诉讼,为保护上述人员,根据请求,将向您或他们提供足额的基金;

   3、若因交付上述货物致使该船舶被扣押、滞留,或该船舶所有人经营或占有的任何其他船舶或财产被扣押、滞留,或者以扣押、滞留相威胁,或者船舶在使用中或交易时受阻,根据有关方的要求,(由我们)提供预防扣押或滞留所需的保释金或担保,或者(由我们)提供担保释放该船舶或财产或者消除阻碍,并赔偿您由于扣押、滞留或以扣押、滞留相威胁以及由于阻碍引起的任何责任、损失、损害或费用,不管这种扣押、滞留或以扣押滞留相威胁或阻碍是否正当。

   4、若我们要求的交货地是散装液体或散装气体场站、设施,或是交到其他商船、过驳船舶(lighter)或驳船(barge)上,那么,交到该场站、设施后,或交到该商船、过驳船舶或驳船后,即视为已交给指定的收货人。

   5、我们一旦拿到上述货物的全套正本提单,将立即将提单交给您,或者通过其他方式将全套正本提单交给您。自此,我们的责任解除。

   6、本保函项下的每个责任人(each and every person)的责任既可以承担连带责任也可以单独承担责任;不管被起诉的人是否为本保函的责任人,也不管被起诉的人依据本保函是否应承担责任,该赔偿责任均不以提起诉讼为先决条件,

7、本保函适用英国法,根据您的请求,本保函项下的所有责任人均接受英国高等法院的管辖。”

   

     在本案中,到底收货人是谁,(船舶所有人)并没有提供任何证据。卸货完毕后,提单持有人 Stemcor公司向船舶所有人Pavey公司要求提货。Pavey公司将这个消息通知了中国的中散公司,并要求中散履行保函项下的义务。中散公司同样也将这个消息通知了下家,其下家又通知了下家的下家。但是,当Stemcor公司威胁要扣押船舶时,这些承租人都没有按照保函的规定提供担保。2008年8月23日该船舶在澳大利亚被扣押,提单持有人强迫Pavey公司提供担保。于是,Pavey公司向中散公司提起诉讼。中散公司为了自己的业务经营不受影响,则让Farenco公司提供了放船担保。

 

    Farenco公司提供担保后,在(英国高等法院)商事法庭向Daebo公司提起诉讼,并申请了禁令。于是,Daebo公司通知Norden银行,他将对该银行也采取同样的诉讼保全措施。艾肯斯法官(Aikens J.)批准了该诉讼保全措施(interim mandatory relif),要求Norden银行提供基金以替换Farenco公司提供的担保金。该法官命令(在实体问题处理之前)先以速审的形式(expedited trial)解决三个问题:

   1、根据保函的第三条,Norden 银行是否有义务直接向Stemcor UK Ltd.和/或Stemcor Europe AG提供担保?

   2、船舶获释后,保函第三条规定的规定的保释金或其他担保的义务是否仍然存在?

   3、该保函中的保证是否以货物交付给Kremikovtzi为前提条件?

本文只讨论第二个和第三个问题,因为这两个问题是大家普遍关心的问题,也是两个很重要的问题。

 

                                                                                   判 决

    关于第二个问题:提供担保后“不莱梅”轮已经获释,保函第三条规定的规定的保释金或其他担保的义务是否仍然存在?

    艾肯斯法官认为,保函第三条的目的是,船舶所有人不能因船舶扣押而遭受损失,预防扣押的担保应当由承租人支付,而不是由船舶所有人支付。船舶所有人提供担保的行为,使船舶被扣押的状态得以终止,其目的是减少承租人违约造成的损失,但是尽管如此,承租人仍然处于违约的状态。因此,发布特别履行令,责令Daebo公司提供担保以替换Farenco公司的担保,这种救济措施是适当的。有人认为,船舶所有人提供担保的费用可以通过损害赔偿来救济。这种说法尽管并不错,但是,特别履行(special performence)将更符合保函第三条的目的,因此,用承租人(Norden 银行)的担保来替换船舶所有人(Farenco 公司)的担保正合适,该承租人本来就应当履行它应尽的义务。

    在这一点上,法官判决船舶所有人胜诉。

 

     关于第三个问题:该保函中的保证是否以货物交付给Kremikovtzi为前提条件?

法官指出,租船合同第68条规定了船舶所有人的义务——依据保函“交付船上的货物”。从交货的意义上说,就是要求船舶所有人依据保函将货物交给另一个人。无单交货的对象应当依据保函的规定,因为租船合同并未规定明确的收货人。船舶所有人认为,他应当将货物交给承租人,由承租人再(向收货人)交货。法官不同意船舶所有人的这种观点,因为,货物交付(即货物的移转占有)是船舶所有人的履约行为。保函的条款中也反映了这一点:承租人要求船舶所有人“将上述货物交给Kremikovtzi公司”。此外,如果是将货物交给承租人,那么,保函中的第四条也就没有必要了。

既然是由承租人提供担保,以换取船舶所有人按照承租人的要求将货物交付给Kremikovtzi公司(无需其出示正本提单),那么,如果船舶所有人将货物交给不持有提单的其他人,承租人的(在保函中的)保证也就无需再履行了。

    因此,法官在第三个问题上判决承租人胜诉。

 

                                                                                         评 论

     本案的判决很受大家关注,也很重要,这是因为,该案中的保函是由一些保赔协会推荐使用的保函,而且在一些大的船舶经纪人签订的租约补充条款(additional / rider clauses)中也经常提到这种保函。这个判决提醒我们,(船舶所有人在交付货物时)要注意将货物交付给承租人在保函中指定的收货人。根据这种格式的保函,当发生错误交货时,船舶所有人不享有依据保函向承租人索赔的权利。

 

    除此之外,法官说的令一点也很有价值。法官认为,船舶所有人(在交付货物时)无需调查承租人指定的收货人是否有权占有货物。船舶所有人只需要知道一点就可以了,即在他交付货物的时候,收货人确实是承租人指定的收货人。如果船舶所有人对此有疑问,可以要求承租人明确说明收货人。如果船舶所有人已经将货物交给了承租人指定的收货人,承租人不得再向船舶所有人主张其交货错误。 

广州刑事辩护律师

【案例分析】挪用公款罪还是挪用资金罪?

【案例分析】挪用公款罪还是挪用资金罪?

【案情】
  被告人王某于2011年至2012年担任日照市岚山区某街道凤阳路社区宣传委员、综治办主任。 2011年,因岚山区新建学校,政府征用安东卫及该街道等几个村居、社区土地,同年岚山区国土资源局将岚山孟居、凤阳路社区土地补偿款一起拨付到岚山孟居。 2011年12 月,被告人王某利用职务便利,到岚山孟居支取该笔土地补偿款191430元,存储于个人账户中,用于个人炒股、偿还个人到期贷款。 2014年2月,被告人王某得知检察机关调取凤阳路社区账务资料后,将 100000元现金交到社区财务,剩余91430元至案发时未归还。

  【裁判】
  法院经审理认为,被告...

【案例分析】挪用公款罪还是挪用资金罪?

【案情】
  被告人王某于2011年至2012年担任日照市岚山区某街道凤阳路社区宣传委员、综治办主任。 2011年,因岚山区新建学校,政府征用安东卫及该街道等几个村居、社区土地,同年岚山区国土资源局将岚山孟居、凤阳路社区土地补偿款一起拨付到岚山孟居。 2011年12 月,被告人王某利用职务便利,到岚山孟居支取该笔土地补偿款191430元,存储于个人账户中,用于个人炒股、偿还个人到期贷款。 2014年2月,被告人王某得知检察机关调取凤阳路社区账务资料后,将 100000元现金交到社区财务,剩余91430元至案发时未归还。

  【裁判】
  法院经审理认为,被告人王某身为社区基层组织人员,利用职务上的便利,挪用社区集体资金归个人使用超过三个月未还,数额巨大,侵犯了单位的财产权利,其行为构成挪用资金罪。以被告人王某犯挪用资金罪,判处有期徒刑三年。

  一审宣判后,检察院以王某的行为构成挪用公款罪、原审法院认定事实错误为由提起抗诉。日照中院二审裁定驳回抗诉,维持原判。

  【评析】

本案的争议焦点是定性问题。对于王某这种社区基层组织人员在协助人民政府从事特定行政管理工作时,挪用相应款项,应该按照挪用公款罪还是挪用资金罪定性,需要厘清三个问题。

  首先是被告人主体身份的认定。王某任日照市岚山区某街道凤阳路社区宣传委员、综治办主任,属于社区基层组织人员,通常情况下不具有挪用公款犯罪主体要求的国家工作人员身份。但是根据全国人大常委会《关于〈中华人民共和国刑法〉第九十三条第二款的解释》之规定,村民委员会等基层组织人员在协助人民政府从事特定行政管理工作时,就成为 “其他从事依照法律从事公务的人员”,具备了国家工作人员的主体资格。本案中,王某协助人民政府进行土地丈量以确定征用土地补偿费用,此时的行为系以国家工作人员身份从事公务的行为。但该公务结束时,其就重新恢复基层组织人员的身份。

  其次是涉案款项的性质。广义公款,是指公共款项、国有款项和特定款物以及非国有单位和客户资金的统称;而狭义公款,专指公共所有的资金款项。挪用公款罪的犯罪对象指的是狭义的公款;挪用资金罪的犯罪对象可纳入广义公款的范畴。根据查明的证据,本案中涉及的被征用土地为凤阳路社区集体土地,土地征用补偿款是发放给社区而非居民个人的,因该地块面积较小,是和岚山孟居的大宗土地一起测量的,故该笔补偿款由国土资源部门一并拨付到岚山孟居账户,再由凤阳路社区向岚山孟居支取。该土地补偿款来源于国家财政支出,本身属于狭义的公款,但是该款项发放到权利主体后,实际成为凤阳路社区的集体资金。

  再次村(社区)基层组织人员协助人民政府从事土地征收、征用补偿费用的管理工作,应以政府向村委会(社区)或村民(居民)发放相关补偿费用为界,即属于集体的补偿款以发放至村委会(社区)为界,需要向村民(居民)个人补偿的以发放至村民个人为界,至此,村(社区)基层组织人员协助人民政府从事的行政管理职责已经履行完毕。本案中, 191430元土地补偿款是补偿给岚山区某街道凤阳路社区而非居民个人的,是对社区集体的补偿,因该地块是和岚山孟居的土地一起测量,因此政府部门将该部分补偿款和岚山孟居的土地补偿款一并拨付到岚山孟居,此时政府行为已经完成。因此,从政府拨付土地补偿款到岚山孟居时,本案中的191430元土地补偿款已不再具有国有资产的性质,成为凤阳路社区的集体财产,属于居民自治范围的经营、管理对象,王某到岚山孟居支款并挪用涉案款项利用的是其作为社区基层组织人员的职务便利,而非继续协助人民政府从事公务的行为,应按挪用资金罪定罪处罚。

  综上,王某到岚山孟居支取款项后私自挪用,主体身份是社区基层组织人员,不是拟制的国家工作人员,支取的款项属于集体资金不是挪用公款罪所界定的“公款”,其行为构成挪用资金罪


xuzhao1001

【尊重他人的案例分析】尊重他人就是尊重自己

   课题引入:

    1、程门立雪
  游恭,五代时人,学问广博,文章很好。游酢是宋代的学者,典故“程门立雪”讲的就是他尊敬老师的故事。
  2、孔子尊师
  公元前521年春,孔子得知他的学生宫敬叔奉鲁国国君之命,要前往周朝京都洛阳去朝拜天子,觉得这是个向周朝守藏史老子请教“礼制”学识的好机会,于是征得鲁昭公的同意后,与宫敬叔同行。到达京都的第二天,孔子便徒步前往守藏史府去拜望老子。正在书写《道德经》的老子听说誉满天下的孔丘前来求教,赶忙放下手中刀笔,整顿衣冠出迎。孔子见大门里出来一位年逾古稀、精神矍铄的老人,料想便是...

   课题引入:

    1、程门立雪
  游恭,五代时人,学问广博,文章很好。游酢是宋代的学者,典故“程门立雪”讲的就是他尊敬老师的故事。
  2、孔子尊师
  公元前521年春,孔子得知他的学生宫敬叔奉鲁国国君之命,要前往周朝京都洛阳去朝拜天子,觉得这是个向周朝守藏史老子请教“礼制”学识的好机会,于是征得鲁昭公的同意后,与宫敬叔同行。到达京都的第二天,孔子便徒步前往守藏史府去拜望老子。正在书写《道德经》的老子听说誉满天下的孔丘前来求教,赶忙放下手中刀笔,整顿衣冠出迎。孔子见大门里出来一位年逾古稀、精神矍铄的老人,料想便是老子,急趋向前,恭恭敬敬地向老子行了弟子礼。进入大厅后,孔子再拜后才坐下来。老子问孔子为何事而来,孔子离座回答:“我学识浅薄,对古代的‘礼制’一无所知,特地向老师请教。”老子见孔子这样诚恳,便详细地抒发了自己的见解。
  回到鲁国后,孔子的学生们请求他讲解老子的学识。孔子说:“老子博古通今,通礼乐之源,明道德之归,确实是我的好老师。”同时还打比方赞扬老子,他说:“鸟儿,我知道它能飞;鱼儿,我知道它能游;野兽,我知道它能跑。善跑的野兽我可以结网来逮住它,会游的鱼儿我可以用丝条缚在鱼钩来钓到它,高飞的鸟儿我可以用良箭把它射下来。至于龙,我却不能够知道它是如何乘风云而上天的。老子,其犹龙邪!”
   3、纪晓岚的幽默
  纪晓岚有一天去游五台山,走进庙里,方丈把他上下一打量,见他衣履还整洁,仪态也一般,便
  招呼一声:“坐。”又叫一声:“茶。”意思是端一杯一般的茶来。寒暄几句,知他是京城来的客人,赶忙站起来,面带笑容,把他领进内厅,忙着招呼说:“请坐。”又吩咐道:“泡茶。”意思是单独沏一杯茶来。经过细谈,当得知来者是有名的学者、诗文大家、礼部尚书纪晓岚时,立即恭恭敬敬地站起来,满脸赔笑,请进禅房,连声招呼:“请上坐。”又大声吆喝:“泡好茶。”他又很快地拿出纸和笔,一定要请纪晓岚留下墨宝,以光禅院。纪晓岚提笔,一挥而就,是一副对联:坐,请坐,请上坐;茶,泡茶,泡好茶。方丈看了非常尴尬。

    

    分析:一个人之所有受人尊重,最主要的原因是做到了尊重他人

 

    感受尊重他人对于自尊的意义

    “照镜子”表演。

一个同学做友好地笑、挑衅、生气皱眉、大喊大叫等表情,另一位同学假设是镜中的影像,尽力逼真地模仿出来。

“对大山”对话。

猜猜大山说什么?

镜子里的人和大山的态度说明了什么?

 

分析:点滴的赞美和欣赏,使我们充满做人的自豪和快乐;同时我们也有责任去关注他人自尊,维护他人尊严。

 

如何真正做到尊重他人呢?

(一)听故事,谈感受:

    故事(1):校园里,两位同学走路的时候说笑打闹,结果一不小心,撞了对面走来的  人。他们俩不仅不道歉,还骂骂咧咧,推推搡搡。结果,被同学们的纷纷谴责,被老师狠狠地批评了一顿。

    故事(2):电影院里,甲和乙边看电影边议论,吃零食的时候还发出很大的声音,一会儿,甲的手机又响了,又大声接电话。旁边的人忍无可忍,纷纷谴责他们不遵守秩序。

    故事(3):甲手里拿着一袋瓜子,一边走路,一边嗑瓜子,还把瓜子皮仍得满地都是,引得路人侧目,最后,又被罚款。

   (二)活动设计

    场景:课代表(手拿一叠试卷):发数学试卷了,同学们!(走到甲跟前):给你。(甲扫了一眼分数,立刻把分数捂住)

   乙生:(扯甲的试卷)哎,你多少分?让我看看!(终于扯出,嘲笑)啊!才六十分?这么简单的题你才六十分?你脑子进水啦?

    分析:1、尊重他人使你被人接纳,得到善待,与他人同享自尊的快乐

          2、借助他人的眼睛作为镜子,来认识自己,然后把感受的他人给予的美好,再转达给他人。

          3、他人善意的提醒,以便能意识到自己的弱点、盲点与误区,激励自己更加严格要求自己,大胆尝试,增强自身实力,做一个有尊严、有价值的人。

   

大立教育北京分校

LOFTER

让兴趣,更有趣

简单随性的记录
丰富多彩的内容
让生活更加充实

下载移动端
关注最新消息