Answer:
The court should stick to statutory language. These days common law is being turned into statutory law.
Explanation:
The U.S. legal system were set up based on the common law, which adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle is known as stare decisis. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered the question, the same question in other cases must draw out from the same court or lower court the same response in that jurisdiction.
Stare decisis is a doctrine which has always been a major part of the common law, court should follow precedents when they established clearly, expected under compelling reasons. The doctrine of stare decisis will remain valid even more common law is being turned into statutory law. After all, statutes have to be interpreted by the courts.
There is certainly less common law governing like environmental law than there was 100 years ago. The federal and state governments are increasingly regulating the aspects of commercial transaction between merchants and consumers, when disputes arise may be the courts should stick to statutory language.
Answer:
xnznsjiwiw has to be a little bit nc
Federal Reserve System ?.. im not so sure about my answer since I don’t really know much about USA
Answer:
c. Spencer will win because regardless of whether Glen was acting within the scope of his employment, Sally is liable for his negligence.
Explanation:
Spencer will win because regardless of whether Glen was acting within the scope of his employment, Sally is liable for his negligence. Sally is obligated for his carelessness. Since Sally employed Glen and the obligation of any carelessness turns into Sally's inevitably.
An amendment
Hope this helps :)
