Answer:
Limited financial resources to defend the action
Explanation:
The college student can state the inconvenience and the financial pressure the motion can result in because of the nature of the incident. The student does not have the financial resources to defend himself in State B. This also does not comply with the "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" given that the student will not be able to defend his actions. Another argument claiming lack of personal jurisdiction will be that the constitutional minimum contacts test has not been met. The fair play and fair justice argument will be based on financial limitations of the student. However, it must be kept in mind that in order for this argument to be string, the student will need to provide proof of severe inconvenience and financial pressure resulting from the motion.
#2 I think if not than #3
It is 2 because subtract 6 from 8 and 6 it will give you 2
Answer:
A Storekeepers will try to give customers what they want.
Explanation:
I took this a while back and it was A
<span>It might be stated that Kant's three imperative formulations are the Universal Law, Humanity and Autonomy. The first one might “act in accordance with a maxim if you can at the same time will it as a universal law”, the second might “act so that you can use humanity, rather in yourself or another, as an end (in itself), and never merely as a means”, and the last one might act in accordance with maxims that would be enacted into law be a legislator and member of a realm of ends. On the other hand, he defines Counsel of Prudence as the “hypothetical Imperatives that have happiness as their end; ex: make friends so as to be happy”.<span>
</span></span>
