Answer:
C
Explanation:
Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so prejudicial to the person making it that he would not have made the statement unless he believed the statement was true.
And statements are usually made in court.
Statement Offered Against a Party That Wrongfully Caused the Declarant’s Unavailability. A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result.
is exempted from testifying about the subject matter of the declarant’s statement because of the court rules
Explanation:
The Mayflower Compact expressed four main ideals (Cline 2003):
It expressed the deep faith and belief in God and His divine guidance, which was held so dear to the Pilgrim Fathers.
It expressed deep loyalty to native England and to the King, regardless of his actions to persecute and exile the Pilgrims.
It expressed mutual regard for one another as equals in the sight of God.
It expressed intent to establish just and equal laws upon which would be built a truly democratic form of government, the first recorded in history.
Based on the given scenario, it can be concluded that a legally binding contract was concluded between X and Y.
This is because, before the agreed date of 20th August, X withdrew her acceptance and sent it by post and also made a call to Y which informed him of her current stance.
<h3>What is a Contract?</h3>
This refers to the legally binding agreement that exists between two or more people about the terms of something.
Hence, we can see that based on the given scenario, it can be concluded that a legally binding contract was concluded between X and Y.
Notwithstanding the arrival of the postal letter of acceptance, this is considered void as there has been a change of terms that have been clearly communicated to the other party.
Read more about contract here:
brainly.com/question/984979
#SPJ1
Answer:
B criminal law
Explanation:
There's no constitution which is allowed people to be writing unacceptable articles, hate speech or any form of abuse throughout the using of social media
Answer:
dj be djfr. eugene. wjgvsn. shcce