Answer:
Roe vs Wade began in 1970 and was officially decided in 1973. Today, it’s viewed as the pivotal case that legalised abortion across America.
Explanation:
Overturning Roe vs Wade and other attacks on abortion access will not make abortion go away; it only serves to make it more unsafe
Answer:
Gin.
Explanation:
Gin Craze is a term for the sharp rise in alcoholism in England in the first half of the 18th century, when domestic entrepreneurs immediately threw themselves into the production of this brandy from available raw materials, such as grain and juniper, and flooded the country with cheap gin, where hard alcohol was a luxury item until then and people were used to drinking mainly beer.
As consequence, mass drunkenness erupted, especially in the slums of London, which led to an increase in crime and widespread demoralization. In 1743, it was recorded that the average Englishman consumed ten liters of gin a year. A number of scandals led to the British Parliament passing a series of so-called gin laws between 1729 and 1751, which banned the tapping of spirits without an official concession and significantly taxed gin production. Consumption therefore fell sharply, and the definitive end of Gin Craze marked the years 1757–1760, when the use of grain to produce alcohol was banned due to a large crop failure.
Answer:
GHB Sdn Bhd and Sandhu
The prospect for Sandhu to recover the extra commission negotiated with Ahmad during golf is very remote.
1. It was made under undue influence, when Ahmad could have lacked the capacity to make a binding contract. In addition, at that time, Sandhu disclosed that the land was being sought after by many other parties as a way of piling unnecessary pressure on Ahmad.
2. There was no intention to create a legal relation because the additional commission represents a counter-offer. Since the earlier offer was fully documented, this additional offer should have also followed the same process if the company intended to be legally bound.
3. There is lack of consideration to back this additional contract. In the first place, the main contract with Sandhu was made in view of his negotiation skills. So what is Sandhu expected to offer the company in exchange for the extra commission? Nothing.
Explanation:
GHB cannot be expected to promise 0.5% extra commission on a deal, which was equivalent to RM2 million, when an already executed contract for 3% commission had been reached. One can also claim that Ahmad, who suffered from occasional dementia, could have made the promise without the intention for it to be binding on his company but as a way of encouraging Sandhu to close the deal in favor of GHB. Was the deal closed because of the extra commission? No.
Courts applying the Davis exception most often summarize it with phrases such as "ongoing emergency" or "emergency situation." When police are responding to an ongoing emergency, their motive is to ensure the safety of all concerned, not to collect evidence. The Supreme Court ruled in Davis that statements elicited by police while responding to an ongoing emergency are not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause.
Testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:
-ITlooks like the kind of testimony that would be offered at trial in aid of prosecution;
-It is made when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency; and
-The primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution.
The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution protects the right of a criminal defendant to be confronted by his or her accusers in Court and to cross-examine any testimony that they may offer. The admission of hearsay (an out-of-court statement) – even if admissible under an exception to the rule against hearsay – can be in direct conflict with the right of Confrontation.
On the other hand, “non-testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:
-It is made primarily for the purpose of assisting police to meet an ongoing emergency; or
-It was made primarily for a purpose other than discovering, establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.
To learn more about Testimony visit here ; brainly.com/question/29244222?referrer=searchResultssearchResults
#SPJ4
