Tomasz Gregor

polajda

Można zobaczyć go w rolach: Lefou w "Pięknej i Bestii", Leo we "Francesco" i Gangstera w "Kiss me Kate" oraz w spektaklach "Skrzypek na dachu", "Fame", "Footloose", "Przygody Koziołka Matołka" i "Chicago".

ola · Wysłany: Sob 1:39, 07 Mar 2009 Temat postu:

jako Lefou świetny..glosowo bardzo pasuje! Very Happy

polajda · Wysłany: Sob 9:21, 07 Mar 2009 Temat postu:

haha jego Lefou jest przezabawny do tego jego głos idealnie pasuje. bardzo podobał mi się również z Bernardem Szycem w duecie w Kiss me Kate ! Very Happy

Dosia · Wysłany: Sob 10:46, 07 Mar 2009 Temat postu:

W Kiss me Kate był wspaniały! Very Happy

A co do Lefou zgadzam się pasuje bardzo głosowo Smile

Slyomi · Gość

Coaseho teore9m je v tomto pode1ned opravdu poiophctelnfd i pro studenty niĹžĹĄedch roÄnedkĹŻ topedcedch se jeĹĄtÄ ve vlne1ch Äeske9 beletrie:)Ale, je skuteÄnÄ tak "vedlejĹĄed", kdo zaplated tÄch 50 babek? Teore9m si doke1Ĺžu pĹedstavit aplikovanfd u soudu nebo ve spre1vnedm Ĺedzened. Je prime1rnedm faÄelem tohoto Ĺedzened rozsoudit faÄastnedky, nebo najedt ĹeĹĄened, ktere9 je ekonomicky nejvfdhodnÄjĹĄed pro spoleÄnost (hrozne1 formulace:) a pak nechat faÄastnedky sporu si o tÄch padese1t dolarĹŻ hodit korunou?Toto Äe1steÄnÄ souvised se zajedmavou ote1zkou, kterou jsme ĹeĹĄili se Stevem Terretem, lektorem v Cambridge diploma in Eng and Europ law. Zda apelaÄned soud vyne1ĹĄed rozsudek pĹedevĹĄedm proto, aby posoudil konre9tned odvole1ned nebo prime1rnÄ proto, aby pro futuro v re1mci ratio decidendi vyreĹĄil "important point of law". odpovÄÄ byla ne1sledujedced:"So it is not correct to say that the Court of Appeal needed to decide deciding wheter specificly mr. Collins was aware or not of his trespassing . The only question the Court of Apeal needs to ask itself is: When the jury decided that Mr Collins has trespassed, did they do so on the basis of a proper description of the law of trespass as told to them by the trial judge? Ifthe answer is no , the jury's decision is not safe and the appeal would be allowed. In that sense, the Court of Appeal's judgment has 2 functions: A precedent functionThe Court of Appeal's judgment (or HL's) will answer a particular legal question referred to it from a lower court (e.g. What does trespass mean in s.9 of the Theft Act 1968?). The definition the higher court provides will crfeate a precedent which will be used by lower courts in future cases (and by lawyers and law students when discussing that area of law) An individual function The individual(s) involved in the first-instance trial in which the legal question arose (e.g. Mr Collins) have a personal interest in the answer provided by the higher court. Once the higher court has given its answer, this will impact upon whether the lower court decided the case properly. It may result in the trial court's decision being overruled (as it was in the Collin case)."