<u>Rural roads are (B) poorly lit at night and hence it is not safe to drive on rural roads at night time</u>
Explanation:
<u>Rural Roads are Poorly lit and hence result in decreased visibility.The Drivers have to depend on their headlights for visibility in such conditions , which means that dangers coming from the either side can not be seen as readily. Visibility is extremely narrow and limited in rural areas . </u>
<u />
- <u>Headlights can be a help but if drivers are using high beams, they can be blinding to oncoming traffic. Drivers must dim their lights when driving into areas where other cars are present.
</u>
- <u>some common Hazards in the road are objects, animals, and debris—can be more difficult to see at night, especially given the limited scope of headlig</u>hts.
Answer: Ways by which a party's contractual obligations can be terminated, or discharged include performance, the happening of a condition or its failure to occur, material breach by one or both parties, agreement of the parties, or operation of law.
Explanation:
In several Supreme Court decisions this decade, the question of whether a constitutional attack on a statute should be considered “as applied” to the actual facts of the case before the Court or “on the face” of the statute has been a difficult preliminary issue for the Court. The issue has prompted abundant academic discussion. Recently, scholars have noted a preference within the Roberts Court for as-applied constitutional challenges. However, the cases cited as evidence for the Roberts Court’s preference for as-applied challenges all involve constitutional challenges which concede the legislative power to enact the provision but nevertheless argue for unconstitutionality because the statute intrudes upon rights or liberties protected by the Constitution. Of course, this is not the only type of constitutional challenge to a statute; some constitutional challenges attack the underlying power of the legislative branch to pass the statute in question. Modern scholarship, however, as well as the Supreme Court, has mostly ignored the difference between these two different types of constitutional challenges to statutes when discussing facial and as-applied constitutional challenges. In glossing over this difference, considerations which fundamentally affect whether a facial or as-applied challenge is appropriate have gone unnoticed. By clearly distinguishing between these two very different types of constitutional challenges, and the respective role of a federal court in adjudicating each of these challenges, a new perspective can be gained on the exceedingly difficult question of when a facial or as-applied challenge to a statute is appropriate. In this Article, I argue that federal courts are constitutionally compelled to consider the constitutionality of a statute on its face when the power of Congress to pass the law has been challenged. Under the separation of powers principles enunciated in I.N.S. v. Chadha and Clinton v. New York, federal courts are not free to ignore the “finely wrought” procedures described in the Constitution for the creation of federal law by “picking and choosing” constitutional applications from unconstitutional applications of the federal statute, at least when the statute has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s enumerated powers in the Constitution. The separation of powers principles of I.N.S. and Clinton, which preclude a “legislative veto” or an executive “line item veto,” should similarly preclude a “judicial application veto” of a law that has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s Constitutional authority.
Answer:
Mainly, the greatest benefit of solving problems outside the judicial system is the cost, since every judicial process necessarily entails a high cost, both in taxes, costs, fees, etc. In addition, the resolution time is much longer, since it involves a whole series of procedural steps that necessarily imply a passage in time, which can be avoided through an alternative resolution of conflicts.
Those means of alternative dispute resolution include, among others, mediation and arbitration. Mediation, on the one hand, involves a series of meetings between the parties in conflict, with the assistance of a specialist, the mediator, who seeks to bring the parties closer together and achieve the resolution of the dispute. On the other hand, arbitration implies that the parties in conflict abide by the solution proposed by an impartial third party, the arbitrator, who will decide according to the rules of law or equity, as appropriate.
Answer:
D. sometimes double the size
