Answer:
to represent their interests in government
Answer:
a therapist must break the obligation of confidentiality if there is a clear danger to a specific identifiable person.
Explanation:
As per the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University, the court decides that in case a patient of a therapist poses serious danger to a person, he incurs an obligation to take appropriate care to protect the intended victim from such threat. In this case, the therapist failed to protect the victim who was killed by his patient. He was even failed to convey the patient's intention to victim. Victim's parents sued the therapist and University staff for not exercising their duty to alert the victim of the patient's threat.
Likely rule against Mark.
Mark and Charles had an oral agreement over a few years and nothing was put into writing. This would trigger the statute of frauds, wherein certain types of agreements are required to be memorialized in writing.
This means that there is a situation in which two people are having to be taken at their word. On top of that, the agreement was made while they were impaired.
If a court didn't rule against Mark at the outset, there would be an investigation into whether the agreement was enforceable, how impaired they were, whether anyone else heard them, and what the historic uses were but there isn't enough time for a prescriptive easement or adverse possession. But this is likely a summary judgment case based on statute of frauds.