I think the most accurate answer would be D- Getting in a fight
This is based on who is telling the truth. The defendant denys being in the city at the time of the murder, but then a local newspaper states that he heard gunshots from inside his apartment the day of the murder (which would be impossible if he wasn't in the city at the same of the murder). There could also be a chance that the newspaper could be lying mainly because the defendant objected that the evidence was correct. In this case, the judge should take this into consideration especially when a local newpaper article announced that the defendant heard gunshots after saying that he was never in the city. So I would say, the newspaper article could be evidence to prove that the defendant is responsible for the murder.
Answer:
GHB Sdn Bhd and Sandhu
The prospect for Sandhu to recover the extra commission negotiated with Ahmad during golf is very remote.
1. It was made under undue influence, when Ahmad could have lacked the capacity to make a binding contract. In addition, at that time, Sandhu disclosed that the land was being sought after by many other parties as a way of piling unnecessary pressure on Ahmad.
2. There was no intention to create a legal relation because the additional commission represents a counter-offer. Since the earlier offer was fully documented, this additional offer should have also followed the same process if the company intended to be legally bound.
3. There is lack of consideration to back this additional contract. In the first place, the main contract with Sandhu was made in view of his negotiation skills. So what is Sandhu expected to offer the company in exchange for the extra commission? Nothing.
Explanation:
GHB cannot be expected to promise 0.5% extra commission on a deal, which was equivalent to RM2 million, when an already executed contract for 3% commission had been reached. One can also claim that Ahmad, who suffered from occasional dementia, could have made the promise without the intention for it to be binding on his company but as a way of encouraging Sandhu to close the deal in favor of GHB. Was the deal closed because of the extra commission? No.
Explanation:
In mediation, parties agree to work together, but under the guidance of a trained mediator. ... Through negotiation, parties are able to bind themselves in an agreement. A mediator, on the other hand, doesn't have decision-making power and doesn't hand down a ruling like an arbitrator or a judge might.
Answer: The executive branch executes and enforces law. The executive branch carries out and enforces laws it can also veto a bill and refrain it from becoming a law. This means that new laws being handed out can be able to help out citizens. They can also negotiate foreign treaties and have an international agreement.
