The legal advice that would be given here would depend on whether or not the person who accepted to purchase the shock absorber acted as an agent or broker.
<h3>Who is an agent or broker?</h3>
A broker is described as a person or organization that negotiates contracts and serves as a middleman between a buyer and a seller in exchange for a fee.
A broker is a non-party to a transaction and is distinct from an agent, who represents the primary party in a transaction.
It is important to note that the element that changes the equation is whether or not the "someone" carried out the above transaction for a fee to them.
If they did, the they may be liable to ensure that you got proper value for money. If not, then they are not liable, they were simply acting on your instruction.
Another line of recourse would be to check the warranties and guaranties given on the product that was purchased.
Learn more about agency:
brainly.com/question/23534924
#SPJ1
Answer:
Merit-based scholarships are based on academic achievements or demonstrated talent in athletics, arts, music and other special interests. Most merit scholarships do not consider financial need. One in four students going to public universities will receive merit aid from some source.
Answer:
concurring
Explanation:
a concurring opinion is in certain legal systems a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different or additional reasons as the basis for their decision.
Answer:
Brayden should dispose of the gum
Explanation:
In the given scenario the law in Singapore states that having chewing gum is illegal. As far as Brayden is in Singapore he should comply with the law there.
The equal protection clause is a provision of law that states that all citizens must be treated equally under the law.
Although this gives one the right to take retain actions, in this case Brayden will be restricted from having chewing gum.
Of he is allowed to carry chewing gum then he expects to be treated differently from others in Singapore. This violates the equal protection clause
