title: Where the earthly meets the ethereal

authors: Chevalier-Watts, Juliet

subjects: Mudharabas

abstract: 2020 has been a year of challenges and surprises in so many regards, and in keeping with this, Fa’agutu v Derhamy [2019] NZHC 406 represented a surprise for the New Zealand High Court, at least in terms of its subject-matter, as it was the first time a Mudharaba agreement has come before the courts. While this type of agreement is well known in Islamic law, or Sharia law, it is likely not so well known in New Zealand and certainly has not made its presence known in court before.  

A Mudharaba agreement is a type of partnership that aims to make a profit.  The lender, or investor (the rab al maal), provides money or capital to the borrower, or investment manager, or entrepreneur (mudareb or al-mudharib). The mudareb provides the knowledge and labour in the investment and management of the funds.  One of the key aspects of a Mudharaba contract is that any losses that may arise from the agreement will not be shared.  If there are losses, the lender will lose that money and the only losses suffered by the mudareb will be their time and future profits, as well potentially their reputation.  However, the profits of the agreement may be shared between the parties, as agreed prior to signing the contract (Fa’agatu at [5] and [6]; “Mudarabah” Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance <www.islamic-banking.com/explore/islamic-finance/shariah-rulings/question-answers-shariah-rulings/mudarabah>; and “Mudaraba” ThomsonReuters Practical Law <uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/>).

In this comment, and mostly following the approach of the Court, I will be reflecting on the issue of religion and its place in the New Zealand legal landscape in this specific context, and then I will turn to the matters of undue influence, and of breach of fiduciary obligation.

text: Where the earthly meets the ethereal 2020 has been a year of challenges and surprises in so many regards, and in keeping with this, Fa’agutu v Derhamy [2019] NZHC 406 represented a surprise for the New Zealand High Court, at least in terms of its subject-matter, as it was the first time a Mudharaba agreement has come before the courts. While this type of agreement is well known in Islamic law, or Sharia law, it is likely not so well known in New Zealand and certainly has not made its presence known in court before.  

A Mudharaba agreement is a type of partnership that aims to make a profit.  The lender, or investor (the rab al maal), provides money or capital to the borrower, or investment manager, or entrepreneur (mudareb or al-mudharib). The mudareb provides the knowledge and labour in the investment and management of the funds.  One of the key aspects of a Mudharaba contract is that any losses that may arise from the agreement will not be shared.  If there are losses, the lender will lose that money and the only losses suffered by the mudareb will be their time and future profits, as well potentially their reputation.  However, the profits of the agreement may be shared between the parties, as agreed prior to signing the contract (Fa’agatu at [5] and [6]; “Mudarabah” Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance <www.islamic-banking.com/explore/islamic-finance/shariah-rulings/question-answers-shariah-rulings/mudarabah>; and “Mudaraba” ThomsonReuters Practical Law <uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/>).

In this comment, and mostly following the approach of the Court, I will be reflecting on the issue of religion and its place in the New Zealand legal landscape in this specific context, and then I will turn to the matters of undue influence, and of breach of fiduciary obligation.

year: 2020

title: Stimulus Equivalence: A Comparison of Operant and Associative Procedures

authors: Kinloch, Jennifer May

subjects: Behavioural Psychology

abstract: Previous studies comparing the effectiveness of the stimulus-pairing-observation and matching-to-sample procedures in facilitating the formation of equivalence relations have had conflicting findings. In an attempt to clarify the reasons for this, Experiment 1 replicated one of the experiments from Leader and Barnes-Holmes (2001b) but with the Chinese characters used by Clayton and Hayes (2004) as stimuli. The adult participants completed both the stimulus-pairing-observation and matching-to-sample procedures. Neither procedure was found to be more effective than the other, with few of the participants demonstrating equivalence after either procedure. Due to the failure of most participants to demonstrate equivalence, Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 but with the original nonsense syllables used by Leader and Barnes-Holmes (2001b). Equivalence was not demonstrated by any of the participants in Experiment 2. Therefore, the failures in Experiment 1 were not the result of the stimuli used. The use of the same stimuli in conflicting relations was identified as the most likely cause. Experiment 3 addressed this by using different nonsense syllables with each procedure. This resulted in greater accuracy on both the symmetry and equivalence tests compared to the earlier experiments; however, none of the participants demonstrated equivalence, and the procedures did not differ in their effectiveness. In Experiments 4 to 6 participants experienced either the stimulus-pairing observation or matching-to-sample procedures. These three experiments examined the effect of instructional specificity, stimulus arrangement, and the number of training trials on the effectiveness of these two procedures. Experiment 4 found that instructions which outlined the task required more specifically increase the effectiveness of both procedures marginally, and that a larger number of training and testing cycles (compared to e 1-3) did not aid in the development of equivalence. Experiment 5 examined the effectiveness of the many-to-one or one-to-many stimulus arrangements (compared to the linear arrangement used in the earlier experiments). The many-to-one and one-to-many arrangements resulted in more participants demonstrating equivalence than the linear arrangement for both the stimulus-pairing-observation and matching-to-sample procedures. Experiment 6 replicated E 5 but with more training trials prior to each equivalence test. This resulted in more participants demonstrating equivalence across both procedures and all stimulus arrangements. The stimulus-pairing-observation and matching-to-sample procedures were found to be equally effective in terms of accuracy achieved on the equivalence tests; however, the matching-to-sample procedure resulted in the development of equivalence within fewer training trials than the stimulus-pairing-observation procedure. When the stimulus-pairing-observation procedure was used, more participants demonstrated equivalence with the one-to-many arrangement than with the many-to-one or linear arrangements. When the matching-to-sample procedure was used, the one-to-many and many-to-one arrangements resulted in more participants demonstrating equivalence than the linear arrangement. Comparisons across the experiments suggested that the number of training trials completed prior to each equivalence test, but not the total number of training trials completed, affected performance. The effectiveness of the stimulus arrangements differed across the procedures, but one-to-many arrangement was more effective than the linear arrangement for both procedures. Overall, these experiments suggest that there is little difference in the effectiveness of the MTS and SPO procedures in facilitating the formation of equivalence relations, and that the development of equivalence is made more likely for both procedures by the addition of more training trials prior to each test, and the use of a one-to-many stimulus arrangement.

text: Stimulus Equivalence: A Comparison of Operant and Associative Procedures Previous studies comparing the effectiveness of the stimulus-pairing-observation and matching-to-sample procedures in facilitating the formation of equivalence relations have had conflicting findings. In an attempt to clarify the reasons for this, Experiment 1 replicated one of the experiments from Leader and Barnes-Holmes (2001b) but with the Chinese characters used by Clayton and Hayes (2004) as stimuli. The adult participants completed both the stimulus-pairing-observation and matching-to-sample procedures. Neither procedure was found to be more effective than the other, with few of the participants demonstrating equivalence after either procedure. Due to the failure of most participants to demonstrate equivalence, Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 but with the original nonsense syllables used by Leader and Barnes-Holmes (2001b). Equivalence was not demonstrated by any of the participants in Experiment 2. Therefore, the failures in Experiment 1 were not the result of the stimuli used. The use of the same stimuli in conflicting relations was identified as the most likely cause. Experiment 3 addressed this by using different nonsense syllables with each procedure. This resulted in greater accuracy on both the symmetry and equivalence tests compared to the earlier experiments; however, none of the participants demonstrated equivalence, and the procedures did not differ in their effectiveness. In Experiments 4 to 6 participants experienced either the stimulus-pairing observation or matching-to-sample procedures. These three experiments examined the effect of instructional specificity, stimulus arrangement, and the number of training trials on the effectiveness of these two procedures. Experiment 4 found that instructions which outlined the task required more specifically increase the effectiveness of both procedures marginally, and that a larger number of training and testing cycles (compared to e 1-3) did not aid in the development of equivalence. Experiment 5 examined the effectiveness of the many-to-one or one-to-many stimulus arrangements (compared to the linear arrangement used in the earlier experiments). The many-to-one and one-to-many arrangements resulted in more participants demonstrating equivalence than the linear arrangement for both the stimulus-pairing-observation and matching-to-sample procedures. Experiment 6 replicated E 5 but with more training trials prior to each equivalence test. This resulted in more participants demonstrating equivalence across both procedures and all stimulus arrangements. The stimulus-pairing-observation and matching-to-sample procedures were found to be equally effective in terms of accuracy achieved on the equivalence tests; however, the matching-to-sample procedure resulted in the development of equivalence within fewer training trials than the stimulus-pairing-observation procedure. When the stimulus-pairing-observation procedure was used, more participants demonstrated equivalence with the one-to-many arrangement than with the many-to-one or linear arrangements. When the matching-to-sample procedure was used, the one-to-many and many-to-one arrangements resulted in more participants demonstrating equivalence than the linear arrangement. Comparisons across the experiments suggested that the number of training trials completed prior to each equivalence test, but not the total number of training trials completed, affected performance. The effectiveness of the stimulus arrangements differed across the procedures, but one-to-many arrangement was more effective than the linear arrangement for both procedures. Overall, these experiments suggest that there is little difference in the effectiveness of the MTS and SPO procedures in facilitating the formation of equivalence relations, and that the development of equivalence is made more likely for both procedures by the addition of more training trials prior to each test, and the use of a one-to-many stimulus arrangement.

year: 2011

title: George Lipsey: a Pakeha Maori who married Ema Mokena, daughter of mokena hou, and some of their children

authors: Hart, Philip

abstract: George Lipsey, an Irishman, went to the early Thames goldfield and became a publican. He soon acquired close links with Maori, notably with Ema Mokena, the younger daughter of Mokena Hou. After having two children, they married under Pakeha law just before the opening of the Te Aroha field, thereby ensuring that he was entitled to share in the goldfield’s revenue. From 1873 onwards he had been living at Te Aroha as a Pakeha Maori, erecting the first wooden house and the first Hot Springs Hotel. When gold was found, he encouraged Mokena Hou to open the field, and subsequently invested in the mines (as did Ema, to a much smaller extent). 
Ema and her two eldest children were granted land in a rapidly developing settlement, and the income received from leasing it enabled Lipsey to erect a substantial residence and to be a benefactor of the new settlement by donating land for churches and a school. A sympathetic landlord, he adjusted the rents to assist residents but opposed giving them the freehold because the land was held in trust for his two eldest children. Despite his steady income, his expenditure regularly exceeded it, and he ended up selling land, though not at first at Te Aroha. Initially opposed to his children selling their land, he came to accept this as being necessary, and spent years trying to obtain the highest prices possible from the government.
A leading figure in the local community, he held several local government positions. Sociable, with a fondness for drink that was usually under control, he was especially enthusiastic about horse-racing. As the spokesman for Ngati Rahiri, he advised the latter and was an interpreter.
All their children were educated, but some died tragically early deaths. After he died, the children sold their land because they needed money to develop their farms.

text: George Lipsey: a Pakeha Maori who married Ema Mokena, daughter of mokena hou, and some of their children George Lipsey, an Irishman, went to the early Thames goldfield and became a publican. He soon acquired close links with Maori, notably with Ema Mokena, the younger daughter of Mokena Hou. After having two children, they married under Pakeha law just before the opening of the Te Aroha field, thereby ensuring that he was entitled to share in the goldfield’s revenue. From 1873 onwards he had been living at Te Aroha as a Pakeha Maori, erecting the first wooden house and the first Hot Springs Hotel. When gold was found, he encouraged Mokena Hou to open the field, and subsequently invested in the mines (as did Ema, to a much smaller extent). 
Ema and her two eldest children were granted land in a rapidly developing settlement, and the income received from leasing it enabled Lipsey to erect a substantial residence and to be a benefactor of the new settlement by donating land for churches and a school. A sympathetic landlord, he adjusted the rents to assist residents but opposed giving them the freehold because the land was held in trust for his two eldest children. Despite his steady income, his expenditure regularly exceeded it, and he ended up selling land, though not at first at Te Aroha. Initially opposed to his children selling their land, he came to accept this as being necessary, and spent years trying to obtain the highest prices possible from the government.
A leading figure in the local community, he held several local government positions. Sociable, with a fondness for drink that was usually under control, he was especially enthusiastic about horse-racing. As the spokesman for Ngati Rahiri, he advised the latter and was an interpreter.
All their children were educated, but some died tragically early deaths. After he died, the children sold their land because they needed money to develop their farms.

year: 2016