Contracts also generate general duties of care in dealing with the rights, objects of legal protection and legally protected interests of the contractual partners. Such “collateral” obligations do not normally have any relation to the content of the respective “primary” performance obligation and can therefore in principle become significant in every type of contract. The more ambitious a legal system is in the development of such contractual collateral obligations for the protection of interests already existing independent from the direct performance expectations formed by the contract, the more practical weight is given to the respective concurrence of actions rules, which give details of the relationship of contractual liability with parallel tortuous liability. The narrower the scope of contractual duties is, the narrower the overlaps with the area of application of tort law turn out to be. The consequence is in turn, that the area of application of the respective legal principles governing concurrence of actions becomes narrower. A concurrence of actions rule which grants in principle contractual liability priority of application over tortuous liability, has to keep the area of contractual liability narrow in the interest of protecting the victim, if tort law is more favorable to an injured party in an individual case than contract law.
Subject to the provisions of the Declaration and other provisions of law, a unit owner:
(1) may make any improvements or alterations to his unit that do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems or lessen the support of any portion of the common interest community;
(2) may not change the appearance of the common elements, or the exterior appearance of a unit or any other portion of the common interest community, without permission of the Unit Owners Association (hereinafter called “Association”);
(3) after acquiring an adjoining unit or an adjoining part of an adjoining unit, may remove or alter any intervening partition or create apertures therein, even if the partition in whole or in part is a common element, if those acts do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems or lessen the support of any portion of the common interest community. Removal of partitions or creation of apertures under this paragraph is not an alteration of boundaries;
(4) may subdivide a unit into two or more units. Subject to the provisions of law, upon application of a unit owner to subdivide a unit, the Association shall prepare, execute, and record an amendment to the Declaration;
(5) The amendment to the Declaration must be executed by the owner of the unit to be subdivided, assign an identifying number to each unit created, and reallocate the allocated interests formerly allocated to the subdivided unit to the new units in any reasonable manner prescribed by the owner of the subdivided unit.
For much of our history, the United States was not a lender but a borrower of law. The United States is a common-law system; and the common law was, in its origins, essentially English. In the first part of the nineteenth century, American courts looked to English law for inspiration, to English jurists and treatise writers. Case law was peppered with citations of English cases. Notable scholar-judges, like James Kent and Joseph Story, also read, absorbed, and tried to import into American law key aspects and insights of European legal thought. The British influence declined throughout the nineteenth century; and in the twentieth century it was all but dead. American cases rarely cite foreign materials. Courts occasionally cite a British classic or two, a famous old case, or a nod to Blackstone; but current British law almost never gets any mention. In the twentieth century German philosophy had some residual influence; and Karl Lewellyn, for one, absorbed a good deal of German legal culture. It is fair to say, however, that American lawyers and jurists have been, on the whole, extremely parochial. At some crucial points, scholars and states people did look abroad. English law influenced the shape of the workers’ compensation statutes; key phrases were lifted almost verbatim from the English act. The English act, in turn owed something to legislation adopted earlier in Bismarck’s Germany. The English Companies Law of 1929 and a Securities Act of 1933 were real influences on the text of the Securities and Exchange Act. Commercial statutes similarly were indebted to British models.
(i) In general. The Department of Commerce (hereinafter called “Department”) normally will attribute a subsidy to the products produced by the corporation that received the subsidy.
(ii) Corporations producing the same product. If two (or more) corporations with cross-ownership produce the subject merchandise, the Department will attribute the subsidies received by either or both corporations to the products produced by both corporations.
(iii) Holding or parent companies. If the firm that received a subsidy is a holding company, including a parent company with its own operations, the Department will attribute the subsidy to the consolidated sales of the holding company and its subsidiaries. However, if the Department finds that the holding company merely served as a conduit for the transfer of the subsidy from the government to a subsidiary of the holding company, the Secretary will attribute the subsidy to products sold by the subsidiary.
(iv) Input suppliers. If there is cross-ownership between an input supplier and a downstream producer, and production of the input product is primarily dedicated to production of the downstream product, the Department will attribute subsidies received by the input producer to the combined sales of the input and downstream products produced by both corporations (excluding the sales between the two corporations).
(v) Transfer of subsidy between corporations with cross-ownership producing different products. In situations where paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section do not apply, if a corporation producing non-subject merchandise received a subsidy and transferred the subsidy to a corporation with cross-ownership, the Department will attribute the subsidy to products sold by the recipient of the transferred subsidy.
(vi)Cross-ownership defined. Cross-ownership exists between two or more corporations where one corporation can use or direct the individual assets of the other corporation(s) in essentially the same ways it can use its own assets. Normally, this standard will be met where there is a majority voting ownership interest between two corporations or through common ownership of two (or more) corporations.