Answer:
A change in the meaning of an unambiguous provision in the contract
Explanation:
The main aim of the pleading the parol evidence rule is to ensure that a party is prevented from any introduction of evidence of oral agreements made before the contract was agreed or in the process of reducing the agreement to its final form for the purpose of altering the existing terms in the current contract. Hence Weaver pleading the parol evidence rule ensures that Ward does not introduce parol evidence as long as it relates to a change in any of the provisions in the contract.
Because when we’re introduced to something we aren’t “used too” we tend to judge. An example of this is like people with tattoos are less likely to get a good job just because they’re judged off of the tattoos, not their actual credentials
Can you make this question more...explanatory?
The answer is the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers. Mesopotamia is known as "the land between 2 rivers" Hope this helps!
Answer:
I believe the best answers are b and c.
Explanation:
Washington mainly wanted a cabinet knowing that one president could not know everything. A cabinet was basically a debate battle between two parties. This didn't really have anything to do with military force or taxes, unless that's what the topics related to. I don't really understand answer A, is it a typo? Other than that, b and c seem correct.
