Sugar Act and the Stamp Act were both British Laws that were passedby parliament during the reign of King George III and instigated by the government led by Lord Grenville. The Sugar Act was passed in 1764 and the Stamp Act was passed a year later in 1765.
I think the summary judgement would be inappropriate in this case
Summary judgement is entered by the court if the plaintiff does not have sufficient evidence that the defendants actually do what they're accused of before moving to trial.
On this case, There is a strong proof that peoples restaurant is aware of Hoag's alcoholism : <u>intoxicated</u>
This mean that sabo can proof that the bar know hoag is an alcoholic and had served enough amount to hoag to get him intoxicated.
This mean that Sabo's case is strong enough to be brought to the trial. keep in mind that Sabo is unlikely to win the trial since the restaurant does not directly involved in the accident. but we can definitely say that summary judgement would be inappropriate in this case.
The correct answer is domicile
Explanation: The natural person's domicile is the place where he or she establishes his or her residence permanently.
<u>Domicile</u> is the person's legal seat, where he is presumed present for the purposes of law. It is the place preset by law where the person presumably is.
Answer:
yes
Explanation:
I agree very much with that statement. very inspirational ❤
Answer:
The answer is unconscious and preconscious, respectively.
Explanation:
The unconscious usually holds unpleasant or unacceptable ideas which are not accesible by conscious thought. Some psychoanalists suchs as Sigmund Freud used dream analysis to access these ideas.
The preconscious contains ideas that can be brought to awareness easily, often at very specific situations (e.g. an answer for an exam).