Answer:
prevent them from interfering with state courts
Explanation:
- The constitution limits the jurisidiction of the federal court so as to prevent its interferance to state courts.
- Section two of article three of the constitution, defines the jurisidiction of the federal court in terms of its scope and the cases it can handle. This prevents a possible collision between the state and federal laws.
- The constitution,has been amended over time by the congress to limit the jurisdiction of the federal court.
In the early 1900's , a company often provided a company town, a place where the worker could live in the near working location ( usually like a mining location)
The workers usually were lured by the promise of high wage.
But here's the thing, in company town, a source of living usually can only obtained in a company store, and the cost is really high.
So instead of getting a high wage, the workers trapped in huge debt to the company, creating some sort of slavery that they have to work to pay off their debt to the company
Techincally, the company could easily bring those workers to the court ( even though is very cruel, they obtain the debt in a 'legal' way), so basically workers cant do a thing
Answer:
The answer is fixed mindset.
Explanation:
In contrast to a <u>growth mindset</u>, which defines people who believe their intelligence can be improved with personal exprience, a person with a fixed mindset thinks it's impossible to change the way they are, regardless of the circumstances.
Fixed mindsets often hinder people from overcoming new challenges.
Answer:
Option A
Explanation:
It is a direct approach to conflict.
Martha thinks it is better to get angry rather than hide or suppress her feelings, so that her husband knows she really cares about the issue.
What makes option A the best answer, is because she does not want to hide the details from the issue, she prefers to let it out of the bag than keeping it in and it keeps burning until the un-usual happens which is not always the best method to resolve conflicts.
It is direct because she believes its better her husband knows she is angry and then settle the matter than allowing the issue to keep burning inside of her. it is direct because the matter made her angry and she is expressing it other than neglecting it.
Answer:
Following are the solution to the given question:
Explanation:
In a mistaken declaration by a child of his age and depending on such misrepresentation, another party engages with a child in good faith. There is no unitary norm. States vary, but any of the above may be valid, based on the jurisdiction.
But you're not bound by the contract whether you have accepted and are under 18 (In the U.S.). If they are brought to court, they will win because a minor cannot agree under 18. Even when a minor is about maturity in the contract, a contract is void.
