Answer:
They might have been written down and codified because they wanted to keep it more of a secret but idk i hope this helps
Explanation:
Answer:
there is a valid contract, but there has been no breach of that contract by the University or by Joe.
Explanation:
Joe met all the requirements the university required of course candidates that Joe would like to take. Although Joe seems to be an excellent candidate, he was not approved, while people with grades below him were proven. This sounds like an unfair case, but this was a situation where a valid contract exists, but there was no breach of that contract by the University or Joe. This is because despite Joe's selection criteria, the university stated that other criteria (chosen by the university itself) would be chosen to select candidates. Therefore it can be stated that Joe did not meet these criteria and therefore was not selected.
It is the knowingly act of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth or giving a false statement under oath, wether be spoken or written when that affirmation can influence the legal result of an official proceeding, this is also know as PERJURY, this is different from false swearing because in this case, this is not an oath required by law, is made voluntarily, and its purpose is not necessarily to influence or mislead anyone.
It was the Pennsylvania Chronicle. <span />
Answer:
Wernicke's area
Explanation:
Wernicke's area: Carl Wernicke, who was a neurologist has discovered Wernicke's area which is located on the left side of the temporal lobe in the brain. This area in the brain is responsible for language development as well as for speech comprehension. Wernicke's area helps in grasping speech and operating correct words to convey the thoughts. This area encloses the auditory cortex on the lateral sulcus in the brain.
