Employee theft coverage inventory will not be reimbursed if the only proof is loss in inventory or land and profit calculation.
<u>Explanation:
</u>
An employer or a businessman can claim indemnity or insurance in case his employee commits property theft under the Employee theft coverage. This coverage can help for indemnifying the loss of property, money or securities as result of theft by the employee.
However, inventory shortages are not covered under this cover if the only proof available is profit and loss calculation. But if there is other proof like video of the theft, etc. then such loss can also be covered under this insurance scheme.
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Luca cause earthquakes. I heard about luca
The criteria that law must meet in order to pass the government’s strict scrutiny test to reasonably discriminate includes"
- It must further a compelling government interest
- It must use the least restrictive means to achieve its purpose.
<h3>What is a
strict scrutiny test?</h3>
In law, a strict scrutiny refers to the highest standard of review which a court will use to evaluate the constitutionality of governmental discrimination. In order for a law to pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest" and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest.
This standard is the highest and most of the stringent standard of judicial review and is part of the levels of judicial scrutiny that courts use to determine whether a constitutional right or principle should give way to the government's interest against observance of the principle. However, the lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny and these standards are applied to statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.
Read more about strict scrutiny
brainly.com/question/14671704
#SPJ1
The answer of this question is c.16
Answer:
I believe that someone could argue xenophobia in that case. Because not all people of a nation are going to be bad or want revenge, I think that since he was a decedent that he shouldn't have been penalized Because he never made a threat or showed any signs of danger to anyone.
Explanation:
