Answer:
FFTFT
Explanation:
Not sure about the last one. I would hazard a guess at T
Answer:
question 1
1 to be happy
2 to have rights
3 not to be scared
question 2
donate to poor
keep every one happy
question 3
to clean my neighbourhood and grow lots of plants
Likely rule against Mark.
Mark and Charles had an oral agreement over a few years and nothing was put into writing. This would trigger the statute of frauds, wherein certain types of agreements are required to be memorialized in writing.
This means that there is a situation in which two people are having to be taken at their word. On top of that, the agreement was made while they were impaired.
If a court didn't rule against Mark at the outset, there would be an investigation into whether the agreement was enforceable, how impaired they were, whether anyone else heard them, and what the historic uses were but there isn't enough time for a prescriptive easement or adverse possession. But this is likely a summary judgment case based on statute of frauds.
Social contract. They came together and set an expectation on how they will conduct themselves.
Answer:
it is wrong because many people lost their lives by believing them and contacting them but not contacting the doctors. They always take the victim to dhami jhakri's place instead of taking them to the hospital. And while they do so, the victim's disease can be even worse and it can be too late for the victim to be cured and stay alive. So it is wrong to get treatment from dhami jhakris.
Hope the answer will help you!!!!!
