Answer:
Case 1 (Fordjour v. Ahmed case on rent) and Case 3 (Giz Construction v. Ministry of Roads on Nonpayment of project ) are civil cases which entail one party by talking the other party to court over money. Ahmed was taken to court by his landlord Fordjour over rent arrears while Minirtsy of Roads was taken to court for non-payment of project by Giz Construction. Case 2 (GRA v. Melcom over Tax payment) is criminal case as it entails Melcom violating laws stipulated by the government.
Answer: A prison sentence
Explanation: a formal sanction is any sanction by law and is enforced by an authoritative source.
The others would all be informal sanctions
Answer:
GHB Sdn Bhd and Sandhu
The prospect for Sandhu to recover the extra commission negotiated with Ahmad during golf is very remote.
1. It was made under undue influence, when Ahmad could have lacked the capacity to make a binding contract. In addition, at that time, Sandhu disclosed that the land was being sought after by many other parties as a way of piling unnecessary pressure on Ahmad.
2. There was no intention to create a legal relation because the additional commission represents a counter-offer. Since the earlier offer was fully documented, this additional offer should have also followed the same process if the company intended to be legally bound.
3. There is lack of consideration to back this additional contract. In the first place, the main contract with Sandhu was made in view of his negotiation skills. So what is Sandhu expected to offer the company in exchange for the extra commission? Nothing.
Explanation:
GHB cannot be expected to promise 0.5% extra commission on a deal, which was equivalent to RM2 million, when an already executed contract for 3% commission had been reached. One can also claim that Ahmad, who suffered from occasional dementia, could have made the promise without the intention for it to be binding on his company but as a way of encouraging Sandhu to close the deal in favor of GHB. Was the deal closed because of the extra commission? No.
Answer:
true
Explanation:
The section 1, article 5 of the constitution of the United States of America bears the Full faith and credit clause, which highlights that the states within the country have duty to respect the judicial proceedings, public acts and records of every other state. A continental congress committee reported in 1781 that one of the things required by this clause of the constitution is that the operation of the judicial proceedings and the act of one state’s court contravenes those of the other states where they are being declared.
Answer:no
Explanation:because why would the police send the child back to their abusive parents? And the parents need to go to jail too
