The thing that the have in common is some of that money goes to the government.
Answer:
Article III of the Constitution establishes a very high bar for convicting an American for treason. However, like other aspects of the Constitution, the exact meaning of this provision is being discussed by constitutional scholars. This reads the following:
Treason against the United States shall consist solely of waging war against them, or of adhering to their enemies, providing them with assistance and comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on the open court confession.
Explanation:
The explanation the prosecutions for treason are very rare is that the conviction requires two witnesses to the act of treason. In summary, by default, the definition of treason is quite narrow. This means that conviction for treason in American history is very difficult and therefore very rare.
In the United States, at least two witnesses are generally required to convict someone of treason.
In the United States, the number of witnesses required to convict someone of treason varies depending on the circumstances. The United States Constitution states that no person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. This means that at least two witnesses are generally required for a conviction, although the exact number can be determined by the court in specific cases.
#SPJ6
Answer:
no its says to stand up for those who cant stand up but ethier way if u wanna stand up for that then do it you dont have to follow it we sin but be you
Explanation: Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
Answer:
possibly
Explanation:
We use the term the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could possibly be relied on because, if the court deemed that there's considerable evidence there was a probability that the bottler was negligent with regard to the safety of the bottle of soda.
However, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may not be relied on if there's evidence of an absence of negligence by the bottler with regard to the safety of the bottle of soda. In other words, evidence shows that there's a greater probability that the waitress may have mishandled the bottle of soda or was negligent in some way leading her injuries.
Escola might be able to recover damages under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This legal principle implies negligence if an event happens that wouldn't normally happen without negligence. However, the court's interpretation, local laws, and other factors would play roles in the final decision.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a legal principle that allows negligence to be presumed if an event occurs that would not ordinarily happen unless someone was negligent. Escola, the waitress who was injured by the exploding bottle of soda, may be able to use this doctrine to pursue a claim against the bottling company, in spite of not being able to prove specific acts of negligence.
The principle rests on the premise that certain accidents are so obviously a result of negligence that direct proof is unnecessary. It typically applies where the defendant had exclusive control of the thing that caused the injury, and the accident is such that it ordinarily would not occur in the absence of negligence. Based on the provided details, the injury caused to Escola by the exploding bottle that had gone through standard industry testing and had remained undisturbed for 36 hours, can indeed be construed as an event that ordinarily does not happen unless there was negligence involved.
However, the final decision would depend on courts' interpretations, the specifics of the jurisdiction's laws, and other circumstances of the case.
#SPJ12
Answer:
A
Explanation:
The Restatement(Second) of Contracts is a general principles of contract common law.
Promissory Estoppel is a legal principle in contract law that stops a person on breaking the promise.
Courts forr promissory Estoppel mentioned in Restatement(Second) of Contracts because "Restatement" is the law and is frequently referred to.