Answer:
Answer is true.
Explanation:
Indirect strategy by cost escalation signals a kind of dissatisfaction simply by making greater demand on the partner involved.
The indirect strategy is a situation where the partner is a state of uncertainty concerning the relationship.
Hobbes was a supporter of absolute monarchy, which gave a single person total power over the government and exempted the king from all checks and balances. On the other side, Locke endorsed a more liberal strategy for creating states.
What do the John Locke and Thomas Hobbes theories of the social contract have in common?
Both Locke and Hobbes saw the social compact as being crucial to the political stability of a state. But each of these ideas was based on a very different understanding of human nature.
Why was Locke's viewpoint so much different than Hobbes?
The natural rules revealed by Locke exist in the state of nature, in opposition to Hobbes. Additionally, they are regarded as fundamental aspects of human nature since they violate people's right to personal freedom. A state of conflict is not the same as a state of nature.
Learn more about John Locke and Thomas Hobbes theories: brainly.com/question/1596903
#SPJ4
Answer:
Answer is Option B: that she was under undo duress from her son and daughter-in-law and that the agreement is voidable.
Explanation:
When the broker came to offer Mrs. G, the price he offered was quite less than what she was asking for. Still his son and his wife urged her to sign the offer. So, later she can claim that she was under a lot of threat and violence from her son and daughter-in-law to sign the offer and it would make the agreement voidable.
She cannot claim about Broker's offering less price, as per Option A. Neither she can say that Broker defrauded them, as per Option C. Option D is also incorrect as it says that her consumer rights were taken illegally by her son and his wife.
The following action is an example of the United States using economic influence as a tool of foreign policy:
C. Refusing to trade with a country until it improves its human rights record.
