Answer: Yes. The motel within its rights to refuse her admittance
Explanation:
From the question, we are informed that Manpreet reserved a room at the Moonlight Motel but couldn't later travel and therefore called her sister, Ravinder, to make use of the motel room in her place.
We are further told that Ravinder was refused admittance to the room on the grounds that there was a waiting list and she was not on it.
Based on the nice scenario, the motel was within its rights to refuse her admittance. It should be noted that the hotel room wasn't booked in her name but rather booked in Manpreet's name. The thing that Manpreet could have done is to inform the motel when she realize that she couldn't come and change the terms of the contract by saying her sister will be coming. But in this scenario, the motel is within its rights to refuse her admittance.
Answer:
The exact definition for chain of command when it comes to evidence is the witnessed and written record of everyone who came in contact with the evidence and had unbroken control of it. Following the chain of command ensures that the evidence collected at the scene is the same evidence that is entered in the courtroom.
Does this help?
Answer:
the others are already answered
Explanation:
For general intent, the prosecution need only prove that the defendant intended to do the act in question, whereas proving specific intent would require the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to bring about a specific consequence through his or her actions, or that he or she perform the action
Answer:
Congress enacted the "Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)" in 1978 to make clear that discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Explanation:
