Answer:
Business registrations
If you conduct a business, you may need to comply with tax obligations. These could require you to register for:
Australian business number (ABN)
goods and Services Tax (GST)
tax file number (TFN)
pay as you go (PAYG) withholding
Other optional registrations include:
Business name – if you want to trade under a particular name,you may need to register it.
Trade marks - if you want exclusive rights to a business name, you need to register a trade mark.
Website domains - if you set up a website, you need to register a domain name.
Fair trading
Fair trading laws ensure your business operates fairly and competitively. They also ensure that you inform and protect your customers.
To ensure your business meets fair trading regulations, you need to consider:
Fair trading laws
Australian Consumer Law and your business
Competition and Consumer Act
Australian standards
Codes of Conduct
An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths was the first law passed by the United States Congress after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. It was signed by President George Washington on June 1, 1789, and parts of it remain in effect to this day
Answer:
One of the most common reasons that eminent domain cases are brought to court is over disputes about just compensation. The takings clause in the United States Constitution that established the government's power of eminent domain states
Answer:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
