Answer:
In that particular case Dale would have none of these defenses because:
- <u>He cannot allege duress</u> because his life was not threatened in any situation, he has a safe way to escape and avoid the crime.
- <u>He cannot allege mistake</u> because even when Phil (undercover agent assigned) was thinking that he (Dale) was breaking the FCPA laws, the crime was not commited yet. Dale effectively commited a violation knowing the laws and consequences.
- He cannot allege entrapment because he was not pushed or encouraged by Phil (FBI undercover agent) to do the crime, Dale commited the violation without the influence of any law officer.
The correct option will be option "D".
Answer:
a.sufficient consideration, because Liz has promised something of value.
Explanation:
a.sufficient consideration, because Liz has promised something of value.
[Because Brian may consider Liz's efforts in creating meals equal to his efforts in repairing Liz's plumbing, they have a bargained-for exchange of items of legal value.]
The answer would be: <span>rapid growth in buyer demand, high buyer costs to switch brands, and more strongly differentiated products
the factors above will make each competing sellers have a lot of potential customers to work on, which will make them choose to avoid a clash between competitors (which will cost a lot of money) and choose to target different segments of the market instead.</span>
