Answer:
Hsu was indicted for violating the Economic Espio- nage Act by conspiring to steal corporate trade secrets for an anti-cancer drug. The defense requested a copy of the trade secret documents. The government contended that the defense did not need access to the documents except under supervision of the judge. The defense maintained a right of full access to the documents so the defense of impossibil- ity could be established, meaning Hsu could not steal trade secrets that did not exist. District court agreed with the defense; government appealed. Must the defendant be allowed full access to trade secrets that are a key part of a case? [U.S. v. Hsu, 155 F. 3d 189, 3rd Cir. (1998)]
Explanation:
Answer:
https://fs.blog/2018/05/deductive-inductive-reasoning/
Go in the link
Answer:
Correct answer:
Explanation:
I am kinda sure its True
Hope this helps....
Have a nice day!!!!
Happy Halloween in advance, :D
Answer: The answer is explained below
Explanation:
A layoff is a termination of an employment at the employer's will. A layoff may be either temporary or permanent and can occur for reasons such as new technology, downsizing, or changes in market conditions. In this case with regards to the question, Amina told Bryan that his service is no longer needed due to an economic circumstances. While accepting and signing a job offer, there are legal agreement which has to be made.
Here,an anticipatory breach occurs when Amina states, in advance of the due date that Bryan was meant to start the job that she intends not fulfilling the agreement of having him as a delivery man.
In this situation, Bryan can't sue Amina because it wasn't her fault that an economic situation arises. If he had left a previous job to take Amina's offer, that could have been a different case.
According to the labour welfare law, in case any employer rejects the job offer the individual can raise a concern against him. An economic conditions can come up anytime so Bryan shouldn't sue Amina.
