Answer:
It would be a violation of the due process and the equal protection under the law.
Explanation:
The fourteenth amendement is based on the conventional interpretation that "justice is blind" and that it should be administered without the implications of race, gender, religious beliefs or ethnicity.
Answer:
True!
Explanation:
The phrase “the Rule of Law” has to be distinguished from the phrase “a rule of law”. The
latter phrase is used to designate some particular legal rule like the rule against perpetuates.
or the rule that says we have to file our taxes by a certain date.
Answer:4(2−1)⋅x
Explanation: Im never wrong :)
The I believe the answer is between A and B
Answer: both of them will have the fault.
Explanation:well, if I were to be the Judge of this case, I will hold both to be at fault. On Sutton's part, she leased the house out and she should have kept it in a good shape. Though the house was not in good shape, Laws had lodge series of complaints concerning the disrepair, which means that Sutton should have had it repaired.
Sutton promised Laws that he was going to repair the stairs, so, I would say, Laws would have assumed that Sutton would have repaired the stairs before he(laws) returned back from his business trip.
However, we should not forget that whenever we assess a situation according to the law there must have been a legal contract but in this case, Laws never entered into a contract with Sutton to make the repairs. Which means that Laws cannot fully blame Sutton. Therefore, i will hold both responsible.
