technically this is asking your own personal opinion but i will give an asnwer based on my knowledge of it:
"In my personal opinion, it is an unfair clause. If a criminal were to go to court for a crime and walk free he would never be able to be accused of that crime in the future. Detectives are always making new leads in cases and if they were to find any new eveidence, no matter how incriminating it was they would not be able to arrest him a second time.
Hazirah can legally claim the remaining balance of Intan's debt because there was no acceptance of the offer from Johan that the part-payment should serve as full settlement.
<h3>What is the law of contract?</h3>
The law of contract deals with the enforcement of promises when certain elements are present. These contract elements include offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention.
Intan should remember that a valid and enforceable contract has conditions. We cannot claim there is an implied acceptance of Johan's offer. Johan cannot modify the contract terms between Intan and Hazirah because he was not a party to the contract.
Lastly, Johan did not offer any consideration for Hazirah to forfeit the balance of RM5,000. And Hazirah remained silent during Johan's informal negotiations without communicating her acceptance.
Thus, there was <u>no </u><u>contract</u><u> </u>between Johan and Hazirah, and Intan should do well to repay the balance.
Learn more about the elements of a contract at brainly.com/question/8116487
Hey man you should go get a ride please don’t drive it’s not safe you could hurt other people man I’ll drive you home even.
Answer:
A, culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
<h3><em>
I hope this helped at all, sorry if it is incorrect.</em></h3>
