Yes..............................yes they do.
As a judge, i would rule in favor if Bakilana
By confiscating her password and forcing her to work for long hours, Bakilana had cause intentional infliction of emotional distress toward kiwanuka.
Bakilana has intentionally inflicted emotional distress to Kiwanuka by taking extreme/outrageous conduct such as taking her passwords and mentally abuse Kiwanuka.
But, that's being said, Kiwanuka does not present any proof about her accusation. (recording or witnesses). If Kiwanuka provide them, as a judge I will rule in favour of her. But since there is still a reasonable doubt that the accusation is false, i would rule in favor of Bakilana.
Answer:
A)
Explanation:
The main difference between these two terms is that a concurring opinion agrees with the majority decision, but for different legal reasons, while a dissenting opinion explains why one or more justices disagree with the majority. Each of which tends to ocurr often in court cases where various judges analyze and pass judgment of another judges decision on a specific case. With a concurring opinion most, if not all, judges agree with the decision that has been made but tend to give different reasons as to why they believe the decision was justified.
Answer:
The reasons for this are likely because:
- Peru was a poorer country at the time.
- The Peruvian people didn't have access to clean/filtered water.
Explanation:
(I'm not sure, but I hope that helps.)
Answer:
b. exhibiting a keen interest and enthusiasm for the subject
Explanation:
By exhibiting a keen interest and enthusiasm in the subject, she gains acceptance from the audience and along the line they will find her credible, hence she can achieve her goal.
