Answer:
The British approach appears to be more effective and even more efficient.
Explanation:
The British approach eliminates the tendency of lawyers to coach the witnesses to produce required answers. This means that using the British approach, witnesses are not properly prepared with correctly rehearsed answers to questions. The discovery of the case by both lawyers happens in the courtroom and not at a pretrial stage. With the British approach, courtroom lawyers are responsible for conducting the opening statement, direct examination of witnesses, closing statement, and cross-examination of witnesses.
Answer:
Products liability laws
Explanation:
These laws govern the responsibility/liability of any or all the parties that participate in the chain of manufacturing a certain product for the damage caused by that product. The parties involved and, therefore, liable are the manufacturer or producer, the wholesaler and the retailer. If a product has certain defects that have caused damage to the consumer, the abovementioned parties may be subject to products liability suits.
Products liability is usually considered a strict liability offense. If the plaintiff evidences that a certain product is defective, the defendant is liable. It is not taken into account whether the manufacturer or provider of the product had intention to cause damage or not, they shall be liable for the damage caused to the plaintiff.
I would check all of them they all do
Answer:
Libelo
Explanation:
Ang paninirang-puri ay maaaring ituring na libelo kung ito ay ginagawa sa pamamagitan ng artikulo na lumalabas sa mga diyaryo, magasin at iba pang babasahin. Ituturing naman itong oral defamation kung isinagawa ang paninirang puri sa pamamagitan ng sali-salita lamang.
Answer:
The only way to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling that flag burning is protected speech is through a constitutional amendment.
Explanation:
Flag Desecration Amendment was brought proposed in June 27, 2006 but it failed. It is a proposed law to amend the Bill of Rights that would allow the U.S congress to prohibit dishonouring of the of the flag of the US and punish those who are involved in any such act.
The debate over protecting it as a national symbol and considering its physical desecration as the freedom of speech is still going on. If the amendment gets ratified it would prohibit all forms o flag dishonouring.
The supreme court has ruled in several cases that due to the First Amendment of the US constitution flag desecration cannot be prohibited by federal,municipal or state government.
