The ideas and philosophies that explain the origin of law and its justification are called <u>jurisprudence</u><u>.</u> It is the concept that differentiates public from private law.
What holds true about jurisprudence?
Jurisprudence is not the law itself but a philosophy of the law. Several theories that assist explain the beginnings of law and its justification have evolved over the years. These legal theories (or philosophies) are referred to as jurisprudence. Jurisprudence is not the law itself but a philosophy of the law.
Positive law jurisprudence:
It thinks that law is only the state's orders enforced through force. Proper law Jurisprudence holds that the only thing that constitutes law is the state's orders accompanied by force and penalties. It runs counter to the natural law school of thought.
Learn more about jurisprudence here:
brainly.com/question/14612573
#SPJ4
The factor should a plaintiff consider when deciding which interference tort applies to a situation is that
- The plaintiff must a contract that is with a third party;
- The defendant must know about the contract at the time of the alleged interference
- The defendant must have interfered intentionallly and the interference was not right
- The actions of defendant’s led to a breach of the contract
- The plaintiff has suffered some measure of damage as a result
- The defendant knew a contract between the plaintiff and a third party existed.
For better understanding let's explain what tort interference means
- There are two types of tortious interference
- Tortious interference with contract
- Tortious interference with good economic advantage.
- Tort interference is regarded as an issue where one party was involved in something or does a thing to intentionally disregard another party’s business transactions or project
From the above we can therefore say that the answer the factors should a plaintiff consider when deciding which interference tort applies to a situation is that:
- The plaintiff must a contract that is with a third party;
- The defendant must know about the contract at the time of the alleged interference
- The defendant must have interfered intentionallly and the interference was not right
- The actions of defendant’s led to a breach of the contract
- The plaintiff has suffered some measure of damage as a result
- The defendant knew a contract between the plaintiff and a third party existed is correct
Learn more Tort interference from:
brainly.com/question/15058912
Answer: There is no general exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in national security cases.
Explanation:
Other well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement include consensual searches, certain brief investigatory stops, searches incident to a valid arrest, and seizures of items in plain view.
A party-line vote in a deliberative assembly (such as a constituent assembly, parliament, or legislature) is a vote in which a substantial majority of members of a political party vote the same way (usually in opposition to the other political party(ies) whose members vote the opposite way).
The law of increasing opportunity costs exists because: resources are not equally efficient in producing various goods. consumer goods satisfy wants directly while capital goods satisfy wants indirectly.
Explanation:
