A i think hope this helps you out
Answer:
The law does not allow the interpretation of a given situation, but gives a specific and practical answer to what is happening. For this reason, we can say that law is a practical discipline. Theory has no place in law.
Explanation:
A theory is something that was created according to someone's interpretation of a given situation. There is no certainty in the theory, it can be contested and redefined whenever someone finds it necessary. For this reason, there is no room for theory in the law.
The law is objective, clear and direct, there is no dispute, nor different interpretations, the law cannot be tested, that is, the law is something direct and specific that results in a single and correct answer about a situation.
Answer:
hope you like it
Explanation:
Workplace ethics ensures positive ambience at the workplace. Workplace ethics leads to happy and satisfied employees who enjoy coming to work rather than treating it as a mere source of burden. Employees also develop a feeling of loyalty and attachment towards the organization.
An organization that is perceived to act ethically by employees can realize positive benefits and improved business outcomes. The perception of ethical behavior can increase employee performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, trust and organizational citizenship behaviors.
Answer:
D
Explanation:
A theory for suing for damages caused by products is breach of warranty. This is a contract claim, and the purchaser of the product is claiming that the product failed to perform as warranted.
Answer:
Wartime actions.
Explanation:
This statement can be proved by Schenck v. United States (1917).
Schenck was a member of the Socialist Party, and at the time (World War I), the party vehemently opposed the U.S. Draft. As a result of this opposition, Schenck followed the views of his party, and took it upon himself to distribute pamphlets, encouraging people to avoid the draft. Schenck was arrested for violating the 1917 Espionage Act. Schenck made an appeal, arguing that the Espionage Act violated the First Amendment, and eventually that case made it to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the Court's written opinion, it's stated:
"When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in a time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right," (Justice Holmes.)
The Court ruled that the Espionage Act was not in violation of the First Amendment, due to the specific context of this case being "wartime."
