Answer:
Yes, big bank would be liability as long as due notice have been given according to the negotiable instrument act stated below
Explanation:
Section 30 of the negotiable instrument act of 1881 refer as such; Liability of drawer.—The drawer of a bill of exchange or cheque is bound in case of dishonour by the drawee or acceptor thereof, to compensate the holder, provided due notice of dishonour has been given to, or received by, the drawer as hereinafter provided.
Answer:
Explanation:
What problem arose from the way the Vice President was selected in our original system? Originally, whoever came in 2nd in the election was made the VP. This resulted in men from different parties serving together during the Election of 1800 and was son changed. What are the official duties of the Vice President?
Answer:
imposing direct taxes on glass, lead, paints, paper, and tea
Explanation:
the colonists were annoyed that the British were taking money from them by greatly taxing all of their 'luxury' items.
Answer: The physician is being sued. Insurance company should provide an attorney. If the doctor is negligent, insurance company should pay (that's why we have premiums). Dr. Z is sued, goes to agency, and notifies the agency. The agency doesn't notify Aetna in right amount of time, and also notifies the wrong company. Aetna doesn't have a liability because they were not notified in a timely manner. Larson is agent to Aetna. A principal's notice to agent=notice to principal. That's the same as notifying Aetna according to its claims procedure. This is not Dr.Z's problem. Aetna is wrong in denying coverage, and Dr.Z will succeed and not have to pay.
Answer:
Exclusionary Rule.
Explanation:
The exclusionary rule is a legal rule of the constitution that prevents any illegal search and seizure of 'evidence' that is collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. It also prevents the presentation of such 'evidence' in a court of law.
This rule also states that any evidence collected in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) may not be admissible in a court of law as legal evidence as it is 'seized' in violation of the person's constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution prevents the government from doing any search or seizure of 'evidence' of a person's home without due reasonable reason. Thus, it prevents a person's from being forcefully searched. So, when such searches are done and evidence produced before the court, they are not admissible under the exclusionary rule.
