As a member of LGBTQ+, I am constantly fighting this *cracks knuckles* here we go, bigots >:3
~
As a member of the LGBTQ+ community, it is my job and duty to say that we endure too much. Some of us have never come out in fear of rejection. Some of us have been murdered or r*aped due to us revealing our true identities. Many people have the support of parents, family, and friends. And just as many,<em> possibly even more</em>, do not. Some people may not go out with their partners in fear of being assaulted, slurred at, or having a Bible thrown at them. This is is not, never was, and never will be a choice. So just <em>why?</em> Why hate on those like you? Why hate on those who have quotidian lives just like you; people who have families just like you, people who need to shower, and eat and drink just like you?
If you believe in basic human rights, in people not being attacked by acquaintances, join me and many others in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights.
~
sorry if it's too short; I spent <em>a lot</em> of time on this. just pls give credit UwU and may I have Brainliest? thank you :)
Habeas corpus is the answer
Forensic scientists can use DNA profiles to identify criminals or determine parentage. Some potential challenges may be using wrong methods, the role of human error in interpreting the results.
Answer:
a. financial statement disclosure requirements
d. requirement of monitoring contracts with foreign agents
Explanation:
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was an act that was passed in 1977 and received two amendments in 1988 and 1998. The act aims to prohibit companies and their officers from influencing foreign officials with payments and rewards - bribery. The act also has a series of accounting requirements that are designed to ensure that shareholders have an accurate view of the company’s finances.
Answer:
GHB Sdn Bhd and Sandhu
The prospect for Sandhu to recover the extra commission negotiated with Ahmad during golf is very remote.
1. It was made under undue influence, when Ahmad could have lacked the capacity to make a binding contract. In addition, at that time, Sandhu disclosed that the land was being sought after by many other parties as a way of piling unnecessary pressure on Ahmad.
2. There was no intention to create a legal relation because the additional commission represents a counter-offer. Since the earlier offer was fully documented, this additional offer should have also followed the same process if the company intended to be legally bound.
3. There is lack of consideration to back this additional contract. In the first place, the main contract with Sandhu was made in view of his negotiation skills. So what is Sandhu expected to offer the company in exchange for the extra commission? Nothing.
Explanation:
GHB cannot be expected to promise 0.5% extra commission on a deal, which was equivalent to RM2 million, when an already executed contract for 3% commission had been reached. One can also claim that Ahmad, who suffered from occasional dementia, could have made the promise without the intention for it to be binding on his company but as a way of encouraging Sandhu to close the deal in favor of GHB. Was the deal closed because of the extra commission? No.
