Answer:
Your answer would be B; "they signed the contract with the first dealer and now must take the original deal."
Explanation:
They already signed the contract with the first dealer and now the only option available to them is to take the original deal since they have already signed the contract meaning they have legal duty to that first dealer. (Legal Duty: a legally binding obligation on a contract to follow the law when doing something towards the other part. Since they have signed it is legally binding that they now take the original deal or the first deal.)
Answer:
As you may know, the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures of their “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” However, police are allowed to search and seize property by proving that there was probable cause to do so.
Probable cause generally refers to the criminal procedure requirement that the police demonstrate that they have a reasonable belief that a person has committed or will commit a crime, before a warrant is issued for a person’s arrest or to search or seize a person’s property.
Probable cause exists when a police officer has sufficient knowledge of facts to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing or has committed a crime. In general, probable cause requires more than a mere suspicion that a suspect committed a crime, but not enough information to prove that the person is guilty of a crime (beyond a reasonable doubt). The belief must be based on factual evidence, not just on suspicion.
Answer:
neccesity and opportunity
<u>Explanation:</u>
Compared to other communist countries in the Asian region, Japan is relatively better in terms of the overall level of rights and freedoms it grants its citizens.
For example, its constitution recognizes and grants citizens the following rights/freedoms:
- freedom of religion
- freedom of speech and of the press
- freedom of peaceful assembly and association
If we consider its stands on freedom of religion, Japan's constitution (article 20) explicitly stated that its citizens should not be "compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice."
Judicial activism is the (assertion or somtimes the unjustified assertion) of the power of judicial review to set aside government acts. Judicial restraint is the refusal to strike down such acts, leaving the issue to ordinary politics
