Answer:
Maesi ka alqn kerish akab Mai laoba banjc aoai
I do not believe the sentences are fair. Both defendants have committed aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a first degree felony capable of 5-99 year prison sentences.
The sentencing may differ based on each of the defendants’ criminal history. Past criminal offenses can effect the sentencing of a defendant. The reason being, the potential for the individual to commit future crimes.
Another reason could be it would be easier to prove that the robbery of the gas station was premeditated because it’s an establishment. Premeditation can increase sentencing because the crime was planned out and there is more room for internal moral questioning regarding the crime.
The difference here in sentencing could also simply be the gender of the defendant. Throughout history women have received more lenient sentencing for crimes compared to their male counterparts. Gender shouldn’t effect the sentencing of a criminal due to the lack of logical basis. Lastly the the items that were stolen may have made a difference. Debra only stole cash totaling $450. However, Jonathan stole $400 cash and an undisclosed value of lottery tickets. With that being said, the value of the lottery tickets could’ve greatly surpassed Debra’s value total. Not to mention he stole two forms of personal property while Debra stole one. The value and amount of stolen property should effect sentencing because stolen property valuing over a specific dollar amount can determine whether or not the defendant will be charged with a felony.
Answer:
I mean if i dont know those 5 people i would just let them die
Explanation:
Explanation:
The federal system of government is one in which power is distributed between a central authority and smaller political units such as states. The framers of the Constitution designed a federal system because they thought it would prevent central government from having to much power.
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.