Answer:
2 points
Explanation:
The Driver Responsibility Program (DRP) was set up to help in managing the activities of road users; mainly drivers. Drivers who broke the traffic rules were made to face the wrath of the law.
It involves assigning points to the offenders according to their offences.
A driver accumulates 2 points for every traffic conviction which does not result in a crash which includes running the traffic light. The driver is also fined.
Answer:
<h3>The notions of victim facilitation, precipitation, and provocation focuses on the victim's responsibility in prevailing a crime.</h3>
Explanation:
The notion of victim facilitation states that certain crimes occur because of victim's negligence. The victim is held equally responsible in the crime because of carelessness or by his/her mistakes.
The notion of precipitation applies to the acts that the victim contributes in making himself/herself a victim of a crime. For instance, when one tries to rob an armed person and in that process he/she gets shot, the notion of precipitation applies here.
The notion of provocation applies to those victims who gets victimized when they attack someone and the other person attacks them back severely in self-defense.
All three notions apply to the broader theme of shared responsibility. They are used in describing a victim's role in aiding a crime to occur. However, the notion of victim facilitation does not equally share the same concept of direct consequence as the other two notions. The notion of victim facilitation often justifies victim's role as accidental and unintentional. On the other hand, the two other notions both contributes directly as a consequence of their acts.
Answer and explanation:
The statute of frauds requires certain types of contracts to be in writing, but there exceptions. One of those would be the situation of working for an employer for the rest of your life.
This is an oral employement contract scenario and doesn't necessarily must be written in order for it to be enforceable. For this contract to be, in fact, enforceable, the promise should be crystal clear about the employer's right to extinguish.
Answer: b. No, because the state acted as a market participant
Explanation:
The state in this instance was a market participant because they were acting as buyers who were looking for companies that could supply the service of exploiting their gas fields.
As a result, they have total discretion to pick whichever supplier they choose, regardless of the benefits or lack thereof, much like a normal buyer would do. The interstate company would therefore lose the case.
Answer:
I'm sorry but I have to ask was this a real eps on Grey's anatomy?
