Answer:
The doctrine of contributory negligence is followed in most states is false.
Explanation:
Contributory negligence is a doctrine of common law that if a person was injured in part due to his/her own negligence, that is his/her negligence contributed to the accident, the injured party would not be entitled to collect any damages (money) from another party who supposedly caused the accident.
And historically, contributory negligence was the rule in all states, leading to harsh results. Many states now developed and adopted comparative negligence laws. Today, the jurisdictions that still use contributory negligence are few.
Generally, the courts have the power to declare certain types of contracts <u>void </u>on the grounds that they are contrary to<u> public policy</u>.
Courts commonly follow the law that the parties expressly or impliedly intend to govern the agreement, provided that it bears a reasonable relation to the transaction and the parties acted in correct religion.
The primary factors required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and popularity; ok attention; capability; and legality. In some states, an element of consideration may be glad by using a valid replacement.
A contract is a venture or agreement by using a person or company to do any creation paintings or activity under certain terms and conditions. these terms are used in conditions of settlement in production.
Learn more about the contract here:brainly.com/question/984979
#SPJ4
Answer:
mathematical idea
It's 0 (none) off course cause she had only one and that one was stolen from her.
<h3>logical explanation </h3>
Then Sarah have many guave because when they stole something from you then you'll have to get many again
Answer:
"It is a fair summary of constitutional history that the landmarks of our liberties have ... the center of one of many national civil liberties disputes in the late 20th century. ... For example, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees citizens the ... Government, then, cannot interfere in an individual's freedom of worship.
Explanation:
YesIt would serve the purpose of enforcing the law in that country which is “any person who deliberately takes the life of another is guilty of murder
