Answer:
Meditation
Explanation:
Annie and Bart are coworkers, they have to see each other every single day at work. They will have to speak to each other in the future regardless of their differences now. Treating one another with hostility is not good for the atmosphere at work and it may have a negative effect on their productivity level as well.
Because they are coworkers, a traditional lawsuit would not be advisable as it would create farther dispute and the company's name and reputation would suffer. Arbitration may work but again, this would take the dispute to another level of importance, thus not being good for the company.
Mediation keeps the dispute at friends' level which is what both Annie and Bart are. The accident was not serious and they should rise above their pride and try to work things out in a peaceful and not accusatory manner. This would also show the other coworkers and the director that they take their jobs seriously and are not prepare to risk them because of some personal matters.
The answer is superseding. An intervening cause will by and large clear the tortfeasor of obligation for the casualty's damage just if the occasion is esteemed a superseding cause. A superseding cause is an unforeseeable intervening cause. By differentiate, a predictable intervening cause commonly does not break the chain of causality, implying that the tortfeasor is as yet in charge of the casualty's damage—unless the occasion prompts an unforeseeable outcome.
Answer:
Oceania became a supply source in 1788 for the settlement of Australia. Pigs from Tahiti were landed at Sydney in 1793, and until 1826 the trade remained important, although it was subject to price fluctuations.
To trade with island people.
Answer:
Equal time rule
Explanation:
Equal time role determines that U.S. radio and transmission stations must give a proportional chance to any contradicting political applicants who demand it.
Equal time rule is a sensible way to control the open wireless transmissions and avert.
The equal time rule was made in light of the fact that the FCC was worried that communicate stations could without much of a stretch control the result of decisions by introducing only one point of view, and barring different applicants.
If I had written your question in English, I could have helped you
