He asserted that the two Chief Operating Officers of Crown had been accessories to Crowns breach of the statutory standards enunciated by the Trade Practices Act. a widowed pensioner who is invited to cash her pension cheque at the casino and to gamble with the proceeds, someone who gambles, when there are factors in play other than the occurrence of the outcome that was always on the cards, and, a person who is intoxicated, adolescent or even incompetent.. UNSWLJ,38, p.367. Now! The Court of Appeal, while affirming the trial Courts findings, dismissed the Appeal and held that the Appellant was not suffering any special disability as to lead to unconsented advantage by the Respondent. This case clarified that a cab driver would have to observe a duty of care towards his passengers. Rev.,3, p.67. In the period between June 2005 and August 2006, he spent a total of $20.5 million in playing baccarat at a casino located in Melbourne, which was owned and operated by the Respondent, Crown Melbourne Ltd (hereinafter, Crown). ; Jager R. de; Koops Th. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. Rules: Unconscionable conduct or unconscionability is a doctrine present in contract law which We have partnered with PayPal, Visa and Master Card to process payments In order successfully challenge the decision of the High Court of Australia the doctrine of precedent needs to be considered to extent where numerous positions of law have been amended and have created rights that should ideally have legal remedies (Boyle 2015). Valid for This case thus effectively contributed to the development of legal stands within the Australian Commonwealth along with elaborating on the issue of duty of care (Groppi and Ponthoreau 2013). Robinson, Ludmilla, The Conscience of the King: Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 (5 June 2013) (2013) 17, CONTRACT FOR THE OWNERSHIP OF GAMING VIDEOS, ASSIGNMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. support his claim by alleging that he was lured into casino by giving him incentives and allowing, him to use the private jet belonging to the casino (Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013], HCA 25 at [3] and [27]). The court specifically stated that it was telling that there was no decided case that the doctrine in Amadio has successfully been applied by a plaintiff complaining of loss suffered on account of multiple transactions conducted over many months with a putative predator [22]. Issues of gambling, the responsibilities of gaming venues and the regulation of problem gambling have been prominent in recent political debate. Books You don't have any books yet. In 2000, he moved to the Gold Coast and established a highly profitable business there. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd & Ors [2013] HCA 25 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The present case involved Kakavas, a problem gambler who was the plaintiff in the case. In 1995, he sought and was granted a self-exclusion order from Crown. In late 2004, he was approved for a return to Crown Casino. In a unanimous decision the High Court in Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25 rejected an appeal by Harry Kakavas against Crown Casino in equity. The perpetrator is aware of the disability, but IS NOT ACTING in the normal course of their business.Is this an arguable summary of the High Court?s decision in this case? This was seen in the case of, Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151. In 2003, he began travelling to Las Vegas for gaming purposes and this was brought to the attention of Crown, who then made efforts to attract his business. We have an array of choices when it comes to contacting us - live chat, email, or call. Thus, indifference, orinadvertence does not amount to exploitation or victimization. Carlton 3053 VIC Australia The judgment delivered by the High Court of Australia was purely based on the factual representation of the issue and the decision solely pertained to that. Kakavas claimed Crown engaged in unconscionable conduct. The first category here brings into consideration the concept of Ratio decidendi. The doctrinal method: Incorporating interdisciplinary methods in reforming the law. This case related mainly to the obligation on part of a casino to protect the interests of its patrons. Heydon JAs decision was primarily based on the In a unanimous decision the High Court in Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25 rejected an appeal by Harry Kakavas against Crown Casino in equity. This is known as the doctrine of precedent which was elaborated on in this case. However, this section does not apply where section 21 is applied. Kakavas claimed that the Crown hadexploited his gambling problem so that he became a regular visitor and alsoby unconscientiously allowing and encouraging Kakavas to gamble at Crown while the knew or ought to have known that Kakavas would be required to forfeit winnings by virtue of a NSW exclusion order. The trial Judge dismissed the Appellants claim against Crown, reasoning that even though the Appellant was a pathological gambler, he had not demonstrated how his condition hindered him from controlling his urge to gamble, and as such, he voluntarily decided to engage in gambling. 0. 2 (1853) 4HLC 997 [10 ER 752] at 275, cited at [155].3 Bigwood, Rick, Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd Still Curbing Unconscionability: Kakavas in the High Court ofAustralia, Melbourne University Law Review, (2013)37,346:446-510.4 Paterson, Jeannie and Ryan, James, Casino not liable for bets made by problem gambler: Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd,Melbourne Law School Opinions on High Court Blog (2013), 5 Ibid. The Crown had offered Kakavas free accommodation, use of the private jet, food & beverage deals and gambling rebates. With us, the more you will order the better it is on your pocket. Their Honours confirmed that an assessment of unconscionable conduct calls for a precise examination of facts, scrutiny of relations and a consideration of the mental capacities, processes and idiosyncrasies of the parties. Before the Court of the First instance, the Appellants main claim was that Crown, its then and former Chief Operating Officers had acted negligently at common law, had acted unconscionably and breach their statutory duties under the Victorian Casino Control Act. Thus in doing so the court ideally rejected the evidentiary value of the precedent in which the court ruled in a different way. What is the doctrine of precedent? Thus, Kakavas was not suffering from any special disadvantage. In here we welcome new clients with open arms and reward the loyalty of our existing clients. The Court stated that significant weight should be given to the assessment of the primary judge of how Kakavas presented given his finding that he did not present to Crown as a man whose ability to make worthwhile decisions to conserve his interests were adversely affected by his unusually strong interest in gambling [146]. Harry Kakavas had a chequered past and a serious gambling problem. Testimonianze sulla storia della Magistratura italiana (Orazio Abbamonte), Equity and Trusts Problem-solving Structures, Equity and Trust Topic Structures/Outlines, Uni checklist - This took me awhile but was a godsend to keep on top of things, Corporate Financial Decision Making (FNCE20005), Fundamentals of Management Accounting (ACCG200), Database Analysis and Design (INF10002/INF60009), Investments and Portfolio Management (FINC3017), Foundations of Business Analytics (QBUS1040), Nursing in the Australian Healthcare System (NUR1101), Academic Literacies: Learning and Communication Practices (COM10006), Foundations of Nursing Practice 2 (NURS11154), Applications of Functional Anatomy to Physical Education (HB101), Anatomy For Biomedical Science (HUBS1109), Economics for Business Decision Making (BUSS1040), Introducing Quantitative Research (SOCY2339), Lecture notes, lectures 1-3, Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics, Horngren's Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis, 16th Global Edition Chapter 9 Questions and solutions, Summary Principles of Marketing chapters 1-12, Exercises Practice 2012, Questions and answers.pdf, Horngren's Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis, 16th Global Edition Chapter 5 Questions and solutions, Exam-preparation-notes-case-study-applications-and-summaries-for-both-micro-and-macro, Horngren's Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis, 16th Global Edition Chapter 15 Questions and solutions, Comparative 7 stages of grieving and the longest memory, Othello Themes - Quote and Analysis Table, PICT2012 Assignment 1 - Policy Memo answer, Week 2 - Attitudes, stereotyping and predjucie, 14449906 Andrew Assessment 2B Written reflection, Farm case where father wanted the business to keep going so gave it to nephew In applying the Amadio principle, the Court emphasized the importance of the factual setting of each case. [See J M Paterson, Knowledge and Neglect in Asset Based Lending: When is it Unconscionable or Unjust to Lend to a Borrower Who Cannot Repay (2009) 20 Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice 1]. A person if violates this section is liable, Section 21 prevents an unconscionable conduct in relation to the acquisition or service of, goods or services by a person or company except a listed public company. Crown did not knowingly victimise Kakavas by allowing him to gamble at its casino. In 2000, the NSW Police Commissioner excluded him from Sydneys Star City Casino and in the same year he chose to exclude himself from Jupiters Casino on the Gold Coast. [2013] HCA 25. The plaintiff must point to conduct on the part of the defendant, beyond the ordinary conduct of the business, which makes it just to require the defendant to restore the plaintiff to his or her previous position, courts of equity dont stigmatise the ordinary conduct of a lawful activity as a form of victimisation in relation to which the proceeds of that activity must be disgorged, The absence of a reasonable equality of bargaining power by reason of the special disability of one party to a transaction, while not decisive, is important given that the concern which engages the principle is to prevent victimisation of the weaker party by the stronger, it is essential that there should be an unconscientious taking advantage by one party of some disabling condition or circumstance that seriously affects the ability of the other party to make a rational judgment as to his or her own best interests. Nonetheless, the court acknowledged that in some circumstances, willful blindness. We have sent login details on your registered email. He claimed to suffer from a pathological impulse to gamble. Critical Analysis of Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 (5 June 2013) (High Court of Australia): Issue: The issue involved in the present case study is whether Crown was involved in unconscionable conduct. BU206 Business Law [Internet]. The Courts reasoned that the Appellants condition did not take away his ability to decide and that the Appellant was capable of making rational decisions with regard to the relationship between him and the Respondent. At age 27 he lost $110,000 of his fathers money at Crown Casino and in 1998, he spent four months in gaol for defrauding Esanda Finance Corporation of $286,000. Before the Court of the First instance, the Appellants main claim was that Crown, its then and former Chief Operating Officers had acted negligently at common law, had acted unconscionably and breach their statutory duties under the Victorian Casino Control Act. He was also what is known in the industry as a 'high roller'. propositionthat only the High Court could change the law so as to allow for the recovery of My Assignment Help. [2], Harry Kakavas a known problem gambler who had a gambling turnover of $1.5 billion and losses of $20.5 million claimed Melbourne's Crown Casino had engaged in unconscionable conduct by "luring" him into the casino with incentives and the use of the casino's private jet. BU206 Business Law. Kakavas had been previously excluded from the Crown in the 90s and it had taken him a lot of effort to be allowed back to gamble in the venue. He claimed that Crown had taken advantage of his addiction, which he alleged to be a special disability, for its financial gain. Thus for the Northern Territory Supreme Court to not follow the directions of the High Court of Australia the precedent would have to be overruled by a competent authority. His game of choice was baccarat. lexisnexis-study-guide-new-torts 1/9 Downloaded from uniport.edu.ng on March 2, 2023 by guest . In this case the precedent Cook v Cook [1986] HCA 73was discussed and dissented from (Bant 2015). Actual knowledge, as the name suggests, involves actually knowing of the special disadvantage. Kakavas v. Crown Melbourne LTD; Still Curbing Unconscionability: Kakavas in the High Court of Australia. By engaging inthe gambling, he voluntarily assumed the risks associated with it.The first issue that the court considered was whether Kakavas suffered from a specialdisability. 'precedent' is a previous case that is being used in the present case to guide the court. Heedlessness of, or indifference to, the best interests of the other party is not sufficient for this purpose. This case also laid down two different categorizations for this degree of reasonableness. The court did not consider that Kakavas was at a special disability vis--vis Crown because it was he who made the decision to enter a gaming venue and, moreover, because he was able to refrain from gambling at Crown when he chose to do so. This type of unconscionable conduct, results into dealings those are in general oppressive and harsh towards the weaker party (Burdon, 2018). 2023 | A2Z Pte.Ltd. It was not possible to consider the Kakavas special disadvantage separately, in isolation from the other circumstances of the impugned transactions which bear upon the principle invoked by him. The High Court took the opportunity to clarify and tighten the principles associated with Amadio type claims. 2023legalwritingexperts.com. Abolishing Australia's Judicially Enacted SUI GENERIS Doctrine of Extended Joint Enterprise. The Court of Appeal, while affirming the trial Courts findings, dismissed the Appeal and held that the Appellant was not suffering any special disability as to lead to unconsented advantage by the Respondent. M.F.M. *Offer eligible for first 3 orders ordered through app! Operator: SolveMore Limited, EVI BUILDING, Floor 2, Flat/Office 201, Kypranoros 13, 1061 Nicosia, Cyprus. Oxford University Press. He claimed to suffer from a pathological impulse to gamble. The provision undersection 51AA is a question of fact to be decided in line with the special circumstances of thecase. Resultantly, the position of law relating to the issue was changed and the previous position of law on the same issue was amended. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25. Kakavas was seeking to set aside his decision to gamble $20 million with the result that the money he had gambled would be returned to him. Hence it also involves duress as well as undue. Upload your requirements and see your grades improving. He also claimed in the earlier proceedings that the casino had a duty of, care to the patron who had a gambling problem (Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2009] VSC. Although the substantive sections, which A Ratio decidendicannot be dissented from unless rule of law and due process warrants the same (Saunders and Stone 2014). Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd. [2013] HCA 25; 250 CLR 392; 87 ALJR 708; 298 ALR 35. All rights reserved. your valid email id. The High Court (Chief Justice French, Justices Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane) was unanimous in rejecting the appeal. The case of Kakavas V Crown Melbourne Limited (Acn 006 973 262) & Ors [2013] Hca 25is particularly important as it elaborates on a lower court authority to dissent from a precedent delivered by superior court while also curbing the powers of the lower courts to act arbitrarily and in a discretionary manner by prescribing the importance of a Ratio decidendi. Endorsement of such a stand would have chaotic effects on the framework of legal systems and would thus take away the various ways in which an act can be undertaken. The attempts to attract his business from this point onwards included being a guest of Crown at the Australian Open in 2005, use of a corporate jet, special rebates and commissions and free food and beverages. We value your needs and do all that is possible to fit your budget. The rationale of the principle is to ensure that it is fair, just and reasonable for the stronger party to retain the benefit of the impugned transaction, A court of equity looks at every connected circumstance that ought to influence its determination of the real justice of the case, proof of the interplay of a dominant and subordinate position in a personal relationship depends, in large part, on inferences drawn from other facts and on an assessment of the character of each of the parties., the concept of constructive notice does not apply to the principles enunciated in Amadio, the extent of the knowledge of the disability of the plaintiff which must be possessed by the defendant is an aspect of the question whether the plaintiff has been victimised by the defendant, Equitable intervention to deprive a party of the benefit of its bargain on the basis that it was procured by unfair exploitation of the weakness of the other party requires proof of a predatory state of mind. This meant that the court was bound to consider the precedential value of such a case but was not bound to follow the previous position of law in the matter. Kakavas v Crown [2013] HCA 25 concerned the claim by a so-called 'high roller' gambler, Harry Kakavas, to $20 million dollars while gambling at Crown Casino . [1] The matter related to claims that the casino had taken unfair or unconscientious advantage of the opportunity created by a patron's special disadvantage, being a gambling problem. or education and the consequent imbalance in bargaining power could lead to a transaction Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/bu206-business-law/kakavas-v-crown-melbourne.html[Accessed 04 March 2023]. Kozel, R.J., 2017. But it is a well settled position of law that all individuals owe a duty of care towards one another in case of foreseeable harm that could arise and maybe foreseen by a man of ordinary prudence (Callander and Clark 2017). We do not store or share your personal information so you will keep your [1] The matter related to claims that the casino had taken unfair or unconscientious advantage of the opportunity created by a patron's special disadvantage, being a gambling problem. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Date Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25. In the High Court the claim was changed, and it was alleged instead that Crown had engaged in unconscionable conduct by failing to respond to Kakavas inability to make worthwhile decisions whilst at the gaming table. Thus, the rights of the parties in case of such a position of law would be completely dependent on the legal stand of previous decisions. The principles extracted from this case are not novel however the court has clarified and focused the principles. Generous discounts and affordable rates define us. The Court itself gives some examples of cases where there might be unconscionable dealing by a gaming venue in allowing a vulnerable customer to continue to gamble. Unconscionable conduct in future gambling cases? Rather the trader is said to have constructive knowledge of special disadvantage if she would have known of the special disadvantage had she made reasonable inquiries into the matter. Lastly, the Court formulated the rule that commercial transactions may not be impeachable unless there is proof of actual exploitation. The Problem Gambler The court was also guided by the assessment of the primary judge thatKakavas was a natural salesman and negotiator that was robust and confident. High Court Documents. This nullifies the purpose of carriage of justice as uniformity is essential for observing equality before the law. Sounds unbelievable, doesn't it? Powered bySymatech Labs Ltd, NIEZGODA AND MURRAY EXCAVATING TERMS AND CONDITIONS, NO-DEFAMATION AGREEMENT By contracting our services and, CONVENTION HOUSING EXPERT 24TH FEBRUARY 2022 15, ASSIGNMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS The Parties. The support you need will always be offered. who was unconscionable conduct. In this case the Court simply did not accept there had been any victimisation by Crown of Kakavas in the relevant sense. Upon hearing the Appeal presented to it, the High Court, like the previous Courts, found no merit in the Appeal and dismissed it. The principle is not engaged by mere inadvertence, or even indifference, to the circumstances of the other party to an arms length commercial transaction. Harry Kakavas was a problem gambler who, in period between 2005 and 2006, lost $20 million dollars at the Crown Casino in Melbourne. Equity courts do not stigmatize thenormal course of dealing in a lawful activity as a mode of victimization with regard to thegorging of the proceeds of that activity.In a unanimous judgment, the High Court quashed Kakavass argument. Don't hesitate to contact us even if the deadline is within a few hours. Get $30 referral bonus and Earn 10% COMMISSION on all your friend's order for life! In judging the evidentiary value of various precedents the case of Imbree v McNeilly [2008] HCA 40 must be considered (Ben-Yishai 2015). To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: My Assignment Help. Kakavas was a well-known gambler who waged millions of dollars on a regular basisand mostly sustained huge losses. 5 June 2013. After serving his sentence, the Appellant negotiated with Crown to readmit him back to the casino, which was allowed and he was allowed to be going to the casino. 185 Pelham Street In the case of Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 (5 June 2013) ('Kakavas'), the Full Bench of the High Court considered the application of equitable principles relating to unconscionable conduct to the situation of a 'problem' gambler and his dealings with Crown Melbourne Ltd ('Crown'). Why did the High Court find that Crowns conduct was not unconscionable? We have only the best professionals working for us who deliver only better than the best services. 'BU206 Business Law' (My Assignment Help, 2021) accessed 04 March 2023. The matter related to claims that the casino had taken unfair or This article related to Australian law is a stub. The case Kakavas V Crown Melbourne Limited (Acn 006 973 262) & Ors [2013] Hca 25is specifically significant as it discusses a legal debate that ranges from the very source of law to the power of the judiciary to interpret the same (Lamond 2014). Within the same period, the Appellants gambling with Crown had generated a turnover of $1.479 billion. The Court also emphasised that the essence of the doctrine of unconscionable conduct is not to relieve parties against improvident or foolish transactions but to prevent victimisation. document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); Copyright 2008/2009 Peter A. Clarke All Rights Reserved. Enter phone no. While that does not mean the principle cannot apply, the Court said, it highlights the practical difficulty of prosecuting such a claim. During 1968 a company known as La Lucia Property Investment . Date: 05 June 2013. It can further be stated that the High Court of Australia itself has been proactive in overruling cases that do not meet the accepted standards of society at the prevailing time. 21/05/2012 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Mandie and Bongiorno JJA and Almond AJA). Vines, P., 2013. Access to gambling has been a hot topic in society and the media in recent times. Within the same period, the Appellants gambling with Crown had generated a turnover of $1.479 billion. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court, the Appellant filed an appeal to the Victorian Court of Appeal. Such disregard would bring about an ambiguous and discretionary situation where the position of law in a particular matter would depend on the interpretation of a particular judge. Critics argue that the court merely contrastedpredation and indifference to the best interests of the weaker party, but did not give a preciseelaboration 3 .The decision of the High Court was based on the facts of the case 4 . Reference to foreign precedents by the Australian high court: a matter of method. Trusted by 2+ million users, 1000+ happy students everyday, You are reading a previewUpload your documents to download or Become a Desklib member to get accesss. In 1998, Kakavas was the subject of a withdrawal of licence order where Crown chose to exclude him from the premises on the basis of pending armed robbery charges. Highly Erasmus L. This includes plagiarism, lawsuits, poor grading, expulsion, academic probation, loss of scholarships / awards / grants/ prizes / titles / positions, failure, suspension, or any other disciplinary or legal actions. Critically, the High Court said that a trader in the position of Crown had to have actual knowledge of the disadvantage of a problem gambler such as Kakavas. ; Philippens H.M.M.G. [2] . Kakavas had a history of gambling problems. These actions were based on the argument that Crown had engaged in unconscionable conduct by attempting to entice the custom of Kakavas. Your academic requirements will be met, and we will never disappoint you with the quality of our work. unconscientious advantage of the opportunity created by a patron's special disadvantage, https://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-9418829-dt-content-rid-, 40745281_1/courses/LLB205_21se2/Hyacinth_LD%20Repository/Learn/Extra%20resources, Na (Dijkstra A.J. Kakavas presented as a successful businessman able to afford to indulge himself in the high stakes gambling in which he chose to engage, the principle which the appellant invokes, A plaintiff who voluntarily engages in risky business cannot call on equitable principles to be redeemed from the coming home of risks inherent in the business. This reason would be a primary factor in how the judgment in passed and in favor of which party. Bigwood, Rick, Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd Still Curbing Unconscionability: Kakavasin the High Court of Australia, Melbourne University Law Review, (2013)37,346:446-510.Freckelton, I, Pathological Gambling and Civil Actions for Unconscionability: Lessons fromthe Kakavas Litigation, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, (2013) 20(4): 479-491.Owen and Gutch v Homan (1853) 4HLC 997 [10 ER 752] at 275, cited at [155].Paterson, Jeannie and Ryan, James, Casino not liable for bets made by problem gambler:Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd, Melbourne Law School Opinions on High Court Blog(2013). Leave this field blank. This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. This would also mean that the lowers courts would be bound by precedents unless such a precedent is against the rule of law and due process of law. Course. His game of choice was baccarat. Kakavas had been previously excluded from the Crown in the 90's and it had taken him a lot of effort to be allowed back to gamble in the venue. The judicial system and its framework is based on the hierarchy of courts and this hierarchy thus in effect dictates that lower courts would be bound by the decision of higher courts (Groppi and Ponthoreau 2013). Inadvertence, or indifference, falls short of the victimisation or exploitation with which the principle is concerned. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2012] VSCA 95 (21 May 2012). Login | RSS, Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25 (5 June 2013): High court reviews the principle of unconscionable conduct, the operation of equity and the nature of special disadvantage, Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25, that Kakavas abnormally strong urge to gamble was not a compulsion which deprived him of the ability to make a worthwhile choice whether or not to gamble, or to continue to gamble, with Crown or anyone else, Crowns employees did not knowingly exploit the appellants abnormal interest in gambling. The Court explained at [161]: Equitable intervention to deprive a party of the benefit of its bargain on the basis that it was procured by unfair exploitation of the weakness of the other party requires proof of a predatory state of mind. Section 20(1) of, the ACL states that no one shall involve in an unconscionable conduct as per the meaning given, in unwritten law in a transaction of trade or commerce. Equity comes into play when in contract, one party exercises dominance and advantage, over other party which has a special disadvantage or disability like old age, illness, lack of, education, illiteracy or any other similar type of factors.
Mears Group Asylum Contact Number, 4d Barrel Race Time Splits, Articles K