Answer:
D.
Explanation:
The answer is "Is suggested by the Constitution, but not specifically stated."
Please mark brainlest!
Answer: As long as they hold good behavior.
Explanation: As long as they play by the rules and do their job correctly and legally, they stay in their position
The two other answers to this question are spot on, but I'm going to interpret this question in a different way. I'm going to answer it as if the question said "Who was the first presidential style Prime Minister of UK?"
I would argue that there have been two 'Presidents of the United Kingdom': Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.
For the first eight years of her administration, Margaret Thatcher was effectively 'the President of the United Kingdom'. Her administration was able to do things most post war PMs were not able to do, possibly buoyed by the large mandates she was given by the British public in 1979 and 1983.
Given the landslide election of 1997, it became almost impossible for the Conservative party to win the 2001 election, and very unlikely that would would have much of a chance in 2005 (Michael Portillo's words, not just mine). With this sort of a political landscape and public mandate, Blair was able to govern as a de-facto president, allowing him to push through parliament decisions that didn't have, not only, the public's backing but even the backing of much of the Labour party. This can be seen in Blair's decisions regarding Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11.
Hazirah can legally claim the remaining balance of Intan's debt because there was no acceptance of the offer from Johan that the part-payment should serve as full settlement.
<h3>What is the law of contract?</h3>
The law of contract deals with the enforcement of promises when certain elements are present. These contract elements include offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention.
Intan should remember that a valid and enforceable contract has conditions. We cannot claim there is an implied acceptance of Johan's offer. Johan cannot modify the contract terms between Intan and Hazirah because he was not a party to the contract.
Lastly, Johan did not offer any consideration for Hazirah to forfeit the balance of RM5,000. And Hazirah remained silent during Johan's informal negotiations without communicating her acceptance.
Thus, there was <u>no </u><u>contract</u><u> </u>between Johan and Hazirah, and Intan should do well to repay the balance.
Learn more about the elements of a contract at brainly.com/question/8116487
