Is there more to this question??? What do you need to know??
Answer:
c. No; the facts of this situation do not provide reasonable grounds for a stop and search. Any attempt to do so by store security could result in a claim of false imprisonment.
Explanation:
According to the situation described in the question above, store security has no right to stop and search for Jeff. Therefore, the letter c is the most correct answer to this question.
Jeff's actions in the store do not provide sufficient reasons for there to be any kind of stop and research, as the facts in the situation do not provide enough information about an illegal act, so if store security forces a situation there could be legal damage to the store .
Therefore, it is essential that stores adopt a theft prevention strategy, with an effective security system and a team prepared to carry out correct approaches.
If a government chooses to do this, the reduction in pollution will TAKE PLACE IN THE FIRMS WHERE ITS LEAST EXPENSIVE TO DO SO. If a government desire to establish a marketable permit program, it must first define the pollutants that will be allowed and their overall amounts that will be permissible. Companies that will mostly participate in the program will be those that do not produce much pollutants.
The objective of <u>Fact-finding</u> is to gather data about project usability, costs, benefits, and schedules.
<h3>What is a fact finding process?</h3>
Fact-finding is known to be a kind of a non-binding process or an act that entails a qualified impartial third party that tends to make some written findings of fact as well as recommendations for the solving or handling of any issue.
Note that All costs incurred of fact-finding are borne by the employer and the union and as such, The objective of <u>Fact-finding</u> is to gather data about project usability, costs, benefits, and schedules.
Learn more about Fact-finding from
brainly.com/question/14852724
#SPJ1
The parol evidence rule has many exceptions, with possibly the most prevalent one being when <u>oral</u> evidence serves to clear up a(n) <u>ambiguous</u> part of an agreement.
More about the parol evidence rule:
The parol evidence rule is a principle of Anglo-American common law that controls the types of evidence that parties to a contract dispute may provide in an effort to ascertain the precise terms of the contract.
The parol evidence rule also prohibits parties who have reduced their agreement to a finalized written instrument from adding further evidence later on as proof of a different intent regarding the contract terms, such as the content of oral exchanges from earlier in the negotiation process.
Learn more about the parol evidence rule here:
brainly.com/question/15733971
#SPJ4
