Answer:
Yeah, her argument will be good in Aceves. The further explanation is given below.
Explanation:
The promissory clause applies to just the requirement that although no attorney seems to be legal, a commitment is actionable. This happens whenever the Promiser already made that commitment to something like the Promisee who performs mostly on commitment.
- Aceves having operated throughout the specific situation mostly on the foundation of the Bank's commitment or withdrew its complaint. Therefore in this circumstance, the essential requirement that perhaps the promisee would have focused mostly on promiser is accomplished.
- Consecration of promise to pay estoppels is founded on either the ideals of equity as well as justice. The lender's action was unreasonable to Aceves and because of that, the premise would be effective on either the bank as to when the applicant was working on a pledge basis. Thus Aceves will be accurate in her argument.
Answer:
here ya go this is the steps
According to the Equal Pay Act, the situation presented is an example of wage discrimination based on gender.
The Equal Pay Act is a United States labor law passed in 1963. This law was created to abolish the gender pay gap.
According to this law, employers (public and private) are prohibited from paying differentiated salaries based on sex in jobs that require equal skills, effort and responsibilities, and that are performed under similar working conditions.
Based on the Equal Pay law, the situation of two employees of different sex who perform a job as HR Analyst - classification and compensation and receive different salary if it is discriminatory due to:
- Are employees of the same employer
- They perform the same tasks with the same skill, effort, and responsibility requirements.
- They are in similar or equal working conditions.
According to the foregoing, it can be inferred that it is a differential treatment based on discrimination based on sex.
Learn more in: brainly.com/question/2396617
Answer: The correct answer is B. Yes, because the State B driver's claim is a proper cross-claim and is within the court's supplemental jurisdiction.
Explanation:
Option B is correct because the State B driver can assert his tort claim against the State B manufacturer. The driver's claim is a proper crossclaim and this is because it arises from the same occurrence as with State A consumer's claim.
Answer:
demographic and psychographic segmentation
Explanation:
Tiara's target market is based on age (demographic) and interests (psychographic)
