Courts are generally not very tolerant of such a practice however, as pro so litigants generally have to be told how courtroom procedure operates and trip over the many rules of procedure and evidence
Answer: B. receive the full support ordered by the court less than half of the time.
Explanation:
When the court awards custody to a parent, they order the other parent to contribute support to the upkeep of the child/children so that the entire burden does not fall on the custodial parent.
While one would expect that the other parent would support their child, a report by the U.S. Census Bureau found that custodial parents receive the full support they are to receive only about 43.5% of the time which is less than half of the time.
Answer:
c. She wouldn't have standing to do so
Explanation:
Barry’s wife challenged the legality of the admitted evidence showing that Lynette paid Barry. She claimed her bank account was private and the police had no right to look into it. She couldn't have the bank account evidence suppressed because she doesn’t have the standing to do so.
This is because though Banks have to protect personal and banking related information they are usually made available for Government agencies under special circumstances.
Answer:
The issue in this case was whether the exclusion clause was valid even in cases where there was a fundamental breach of the contract.
Explanation:
The Defendant, Mr. Wallis, had agreed to buy a used car if the vendor was able to find a company in which the Defendant could enter into a hire-purchase agreement. The vendor found such a company. Once the agreement was entered into, the Defendant inspected the vehicle he had agreed to purchase through the hire purchase agreement and found that it had been sustainable altered from the version he had seen and agreed to buy. Mainly, the radio was missing, as were the chrome strips around the body, the new tires had been replaced by old ones, the bumper was not held together with rope and perhaps most importantly, the car could not start. Mr. Wallis refused to pay for the car. The hire purchase agreement contained an exclusion clause which stated that ‘No condition or warranty that the vehicle is roadworthy or as to its age, condition or fitness for any purpose is given by the owner or implied herein.’