Answer:
Case 1 (Fordjour v. Ahmed case on rent) and Case 3 (Giz Construction v. Ministry of Roads on Nonpayment of project ) are civil cases which entail one party by talking the other party to court over money. Ahmed was taken to court by his landlord Fordjour over rent arrears while Minirtsy of Roads was taken to court for non-payment of project by Giz Construction. Case 2 (GRA v. Melcom over Tax payment) is criminal case as it entails Melcom violating laws stipulated by the government.
Raging, issues, they mentally need help, or maybe they just need to start working on a better schedule
Answer: b. No, because the state acted as a market participant
Explanation:
The state in this instance was a market participant because they were acting as buyers who were looking for companies that could supply the service of exploiting their gas fields.
As a result, they have total discretion to pick whichever supplier they choose, regardless of the benefits or lack thereof, much like a normal buyer would do. The interstate company would therefore lose the case.
Answer:
I hope the law comepletely neglects health for these implements or as you call them ¨humans¨ but I completely hope that the government who wants to implement a law for humans rights <u><em>BURNS STRAIGHT TO HELL FOR ALL TO SEE</em></u>
Explanation:
