That would be the treaty of paris.
A person who finds property has a(n) <u>Legal </u>responsibility to make reasonable efforts to return the property to its rightful owner.
Adverse possession is a legal principle that states that a person can accumulate felony ownership of a person else's assets. for you to do so, they want to acquire ownership or are living on that property for a positive length of time. typically, the shape of the property is land.
As a consequence, ownership tends to seem as prima facie evidence of the right of ownership; it gives this right in opposition to everybody besides the rightful owner. Mere ownership with the aid of a finder is sufficient to provide grounds for a movement towards one that deprives him of the item without a higher proper than his personal.
Possession is the prima-facie proof of ownership. The assets which belong to no person, (res nullius), belong to the primary possessor of it and he acquires a legitimate title to it as towards the sector. This mode of acquisition has been known as an occupation in Roman law.
Learn more about ownership here: brainly.com/question/523607
#SPJ4
Modeling is the answer youre looking for.
The correct answer is known as "identity versus role confusion".
Identity versus role confusion is known to be as <span>the </span>fifth degree<span> of ego </span>in step with<span> psychologist Erik Erikson's </span>idea<span> of psychosocial </span>improvement<span>. This </span>degree takes place at some stage in adolescence among<span> the </span>a while<span> of </span>approximately<span> 12 and 18. </span>in the course of<span> this </span>degree<span>, </span>children discover<span> their independence and </span>expand<span> a </span>experience<span> of self.</span>
Answer: social exchange theory
Explanation:
Social exchange theory state that in the relationships we form with others we will always try to weigh the benefits versus the cost of that particular relationship.
Every relationship is a two way which means it is not about one person constantly giving whilst the other one is constantly receiving.
The give and take though is not always equal in all relationships that we have which is what this theory states that we may look at whether we are benefiting from that relationship more than it cost us then we can choose to stay and continue with that association.
If the cost is higher than the benefits it may not worth it to keep associating with that relationship.
Relationships that are worth holding unto are those which have benefits that are higher than the cost those are positive relationships but negative ones cost us more than they benefit us.