Answer: rulers they had
Explanation:
This is the answer according to google.
Answer: The answer is explained below
Explanation:
A layoff is a termination of an employment at the employer's will. A layoff may be either temporary or permanent and can occur for reasons such as new technology, downsizing, or changes in market conditions. In this case with regards to the question, Amina told Bryan that his service is no longer needed due to an economic circumstances. While accepting and signing a job offer, there are legal agreement which has to be made.
Here,an anticipatory breach occurs when Amina states, in advance of the due date that Bryan was meant to start the job that she intends not fulfilling the agreement of having him as a delivery man.
In this situation, Bryan can't sue Amina because it wasn't her fault that an economic situation arises. If he had left a previous job to take Amina's offer, that could have been a different case.
According to the labour welfare law, in case any employer rejects the job offer the individual can raise a concern against him. An economic conditions can come up anytime so Bryan shouldn't sue Amina.
Answer:
How are the cases similar to each other? In other words, why would the earlier case be a precedent in the decision for the other?
What are the main arguments for each side in the Vernonia v. Acton case? What details does each side use to support their opinion?
Which side in the Vernonia v. Acton case had the stronger argument and why? (It's okay to choose either side. You will not be graded on your opinion, but rather on how well you support it with facts. Remember that even Supreme Court justices do not always agree!) pls keep it organized
Explanation:
Answer: 56 leve;
Explanation: because its great
