Answer:
the will made with undue influence
Explanation:
A testator is simply an anyone who writes a will and also anyone who executes a valid will or a given legacy.
In this scenario called undue influence where a person influences or persuades the testator to alter or make some changes his or her will due to the fact that the testator vulnerable state(emotionally and physically unstable).
Anyone can influences a testator. the people who can easily persuade a testator to make changes in his/her will are those who are close to the testator and also recognizes that the testator is not emotionally and physically stable and so they persuades the testator to agree to their demand and make the changes in the will.
If a can remember it was answer D
Answer:
<h3>I think this might help you</h3><h3>
Explanation:</h3><h3 />
<h3>With the flu season swiftly approaching and the H1N1 already affecting large numbers across the world, New Hampshire faces the possibility of a flu epidemic. In such an instance, what action would the state or federal government take? The possibility of a massive quarantine gets thrown around every time a flu epidemic exists, but is such an action an infringement of the rights of individuals living in a free nation? Or is the common good of preventing the spread of infection more important?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>Even the current health care debate reflects the tension between individual rights and the common good. Over the past months New Hampshire town halls have been crowded with individuals taking a side in the individual rights/common good debate. Some have expressed the view that health care initiatives are in the interest of a healthier state and nation. Others claim that compulsory health insurance impedes individuals’ right to the best health care money can buy. Can the individual rights vs. common good debate help us understand some of the ideological tension behind the current health care discussion?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>As many of these examples show, this month’s question is largely political, but it can also flow into other areas of thought. There’s the philosophical and moral question of the Donner Party; if you and five others were stranded and starving, and your only hope of getting out alive is to eat the first member who passed away, would you do it to save the rest of the group? There is the question that comes up around the disabled. Do you build special infrastructure to accommodate the few who are disabled even if that meant the cost to do this would jack up prices. Then there is the commercial/environmental side. What is more important, buying a cheaper car that fits your personal budget and your personal tastes or a more expensive and efficient auto that would help save the environment? What do you think?
</h3>
A country should, whenever feasible, have sovereignty over their own water supply. In Canada's case, there is an abundance of freshwater for consumption throughout the country. New questions are emerging over the status of the Northwest Passage and that will have to be resolved in the International community but it is likely that Canada will have to give up some sovereignty in return for the benefits of trade passage.
