Answer:
C. Limited the powers of labor unions
Explanation:
The Taft–Hartley Act or Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, is a federal law in United States that limits the powers of labor unions and its activities.
The Act was implemented on June 23, 1947, under the veto of President Harry S. Truman.
It came into effect after the major strike wave in United States during 1945-46.
The law successfully amended the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. It clearly prohibits union from engaging into "unfair labor practices" like political strikes, jurisdictional strikes, boycotts, monetary donations etc.
The restrictions were imposed to keep a check on proper exercise of powers by the labor unions and to maintain a liberal market flow in America.
"Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right: The right to dignity and to a decent life."
-Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandala believes that overcoming poverty is giving others a chance to thrive, when originally, they may not have had that door. By opening them, he believes that it is just, not charitable.
Hazirah can legally claim the remaining balance of Intan's debt because there was no acceptance of the offer from Johan that the part-payment should serve as full settlement.
<h3>What is the law of contract?</h3>
The law of contract deals with the enforcement of promises when certain elements are present. These contract elements include offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention.
Intan should remember that a valid and enforceable contract has conditions. We cannot claim there is an implied acceptance of Johan's offer. Johan cannot modify the contract terms between Intan and Hazirah because he was not a party to the contract.
Lastly, Johan did not offer any consideration for Hazirah to forfeit the balance of RM5,000. And Hazirah remained silent during Johan's informal negotiations without communicating her acceptance.
Thus, there was <u>no </u><u>contract</u><u> </u>between Johan and Hazirah, and Intan should do well to repay the balance.
Learn more about the elements of a contract at brainly.com/question/8116487
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
Every state court in the United States have jurisdiction over the persons within the territory. The court must have both personal jurisdiction as well as subject jurisdiction so as to have a jurisdiction over a case.
Any court can exercise personal jurisdiction over any defendant unless the statute exists in forum state which explicitly give authorization to the court to have personal jurisdiction over that particular defendant. A defendant must not be a resident of the state in order to have a personal jurisdiction over him by the court.
Janahakavjaiagvahavkabsbsbajbwbakabvaijavabajvsshhshsjsjsjsjajkajsvskskkekekskskwk