Answer:
no
Explanation:
Its illegal plus youll just have to grieve like everyone lese
Answer:
A. checking that you can see your tires in the mirror
Explanation:It's so you can see around your vehicle and take away blind spots.
Answer:
1. It made a Unilateral mistake
2. It cannot be voided by the cruise line
Explanation:
This cruise line has made a Unilateral mistake in this scenario.
In terms of the law, this cruise line does not have the power to void the transaction on its own accord in the normal course of business. but it has the right to plea in a law court that it did this business transaction sale based on non availability of complete price quote and also that there was a unilateral mistake of facts. It will also have to make a case that the sale was caused by the buyer who tried to benefit from the mistake through misrepresentation and omissions.
The court would then decide on the case at it own discretion.
Answer:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
