Answer:
no
Explanation:
no the shouldnt because what they did was completely wrong and they cant be trusted not to do it again
Considering the legal implication, the option that will involve a lawsuit is "<u>Material breach of contract</u>."
<h3>What is a Material breach of contract?</h3>
A <u>material breach of contract</u> is the legal term used to describe the kind of breach of contract condition or situation that would render the entire contract useless or undoable and it's punishable by law.
An excellent example of a <u>Material breach of contract</u> is when a seller has agreed to sell and collect money but later refuses to sell to the buyer again.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that the correct answer is option D. "<u>Material breach of contract."</u>
Learn more about Breach of contract here: brainly.com/question/1184001
it would be against chris because he cooked the food (is the owner aswell) because dan did't know that the food was contaminated.
Explanation:
If I’m correct I believe that Adam was telling the truth (I think)
Answer:
Seven years
Explanation:
A common law marriage is when the couple lives together for a period of time (seven years, though amount of time varies by state) and holds themselves out to friends, family and the community as "being married," have capacity to marry and intend to be married but without ever going through a formal ceremony or getting a marriage license.