Anarchy, Authoritarian, and totalitarianism correctly arrange systems of government in order from least powerful to most powerful. Thus option D is correct.
What is government?The group of people who make up a municipal unit's or an institution's regulatory agency. An organized population is governed by a system or group of individuals, typically a state. The government often consists of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches in the situation of its broad integrative definition.
Anarchy is a condition of disarray brought on by a lack of respect for or disregard for authority or other governing mechanisms.
Authoritarianism is supporting or imposing slavish submission to authority, particularly that of the government, somewhere at expense of human freedom.
Totalitarianism is a kind of government that demands total submission to authority and is autocratic and centralized.
Therefore, option D is the correct option.
Learn more about the government, Here:
brainly.com/question/16940043
#SPJ5
What can officers do to maintain effective communication during emergency situations
Answer:
Explanation:
In emergency situations like school shooting, bomb threats and other emergency situations, people will tend to panic. The officer would need to explain what is going and to calm the people down by keeping their explanation short. It can also save lives and reduce injury. Knowing the proper protective actions to take enables people to reduce their risks.
Lois considers herself an act utilitarian. Accordingly, which of the following statements is Lois MOST likely to make?
Answer:
its c
Explanation:
WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AFTER A COMMITEE HAS REPORTED A MEASURE TO THE SENATE
Answer:
A congressional debate takes place and members vote on the measure.
a. If you were the Garrett family's attorney, what arguments would you make at the trial? What
evidence would you want to introduce during the trial?
Answer:
Since Mrs Garrett had died suffering from lung cancer as a result of having been smoking cigarettes for 20 years, suing ABC Tobacco Company I'd have argued that it was these cigarettes from the aforementioned company that resulted in her developing a cancer of the lungs and subsequently dying from it. As evidence, I would present her medical reports that state clearly and without a shadow of doubt that the cause of death in her case was indeed lung cancer.
Hope that answers the question, have a great day!
The evidence that Garrett family's attorney should introduce during the trial is that Mrs. Garrett died of lung cancer.
Based on the complete information, it was stated that Mrs. Garrett dues from lung cancer due to the fact that she had been smoking cigarettes for quite a number of years.
Therefore, this will have been presented as evidence to sue ABC Tobacco company that it was the cigarettes that led to cancer that she had and the eventual death.
The medical report that showed that she had cancer should also be presented to support the claim.
Read related link on:
https://brainly.com/question/15558413
Robert is about to graduate college, and his parents tell him that because he is the first member of the family to graduate college, they want to buy him a new, but inexpensive, car. They have the money to buy the car, and Robert is excited about getting his gift. Robert owns a used car but has never owned a new car, so this will be his first. He decides to keep his used-car because he had been promised a new car by his parents for his high school graduation and never got it. On graduation day, his parents tell him that they have decided to use the car money for a vacation and there will be no new car. Legal recourse?
Answer:
Robert cannot successfully sue because he did not rely to his detriment on the promise
Explanation:
Racecourse is a person's resort, soliciting or soliciting the courts, another person, manufacturer of a product, assistance or protectionLegal intercourse, on the other hand, is a deliberate act (action) performed by an individual, group or corporation for a permanent solution to legal difficulties. It comes in a suit, petition or other way. Promissory estoppel can be defined as rules, principles, or laws that prohibit a party from acting differently, even if the first party does not promise, and the other party relies on the promise made and worked for it, but in Robert's case, he does not believe in the promise but his own used car.ALAP
What is law really
Law is a practical discipline; theory has no place in law. With specific references to the Law of Contract, discuss. 700 words limit
The APA referencing style
Answer is given below
Explanation:
The contract is a branch of private law. It is concerned with private obligations arising in relation to natural and artificial people's symmetrical relations, rather than public obligations arising in relation to hierarchical relations between individuals and state. The contract is specific, at least in its traditional expression, to the obligations of the selected, or voluntary, obligations - that is, the obligations set out by the parties' intentions. This entry describes the doctrinal and theoretical accounts of contract law - with particular emphasis on the law of torture and antitrust law, contract law, and the relationship between two close neighbor. Law is a very interesting discipline and honestly speaking, law is a discipline that deals with other careers or disciplines or professions. Every work or work or profession has its own law. The law binds people and their every move or way of doing thing. Law is a practical discipline because all you have to do is apply it, whatever it is (the law) has a lot of applications. For example, using LAW OF CONTRACT as a specific reference must be done in accordance with the law, if anything happens in a contract.A change in or addition to the constitution is called a
Answer:
amendment
Explanation:
Answer:
Amendment
Explanation:
Banking Problems. Constance and Blair are both loan officers at ABC Bank. Constance, being somewhat dishonest, tells Henry, a customer of the bank who is wealthy and rarely checks the status of outstanding loans and balances, that she is collecting money for a local animal shelter. She asks him to sign a pledge that he will contribute $50 to the animal shelter. In fact, she had him sign a promissory note made out to her for $5,000, which she later endorsed to Richard. Henry proceeds back to one of his businesses, a used car dealership. Taylor comes in to purchase a used car. He and Henry agree that Taylor will purchase a used car for $3,000. Martha also comes in, and she and Henry agree that she will purchase a used car for $4,000. Both Taylor and Martha make out promissory notes payable to Henry. At the end of the day, Henry is looking through the notes and decides that Taylor's was mistakenly made out for $3,000. Henry mistakenly, but honestly, believed that the deal was for $3,500. Therefore, he changes the note to reflect that Taylor owed $3,500. Henry, on the other hand, simply did not like Martha. He decided that $4,000 was not enough for the car. Accordingly, he changed the note to $4,500. Which of the following is true regarding Martha's liability to Henry?
a. He will be liable because an official banking document was involved. 0 O He can claim fraud in the inducement
b. He will be liable without further inquiry unless he can establish that the note had not been endorsed to a holder in due course.
c. He can claim fraud in the factum, and whether he is liable or not will depend upon whether a court determines that he should have known what he was signing
d. He will not be liable, because a party is never liable when the party signed a negotiable instrument without knowing that it is, in fact, a negotiable instrument
Answer:C
Explanation:
Out of the choices provided above, it can be concluded to state that the Martha's personal liability to Henry will be such that he can claim fraud in the factum, and whether he is liable or not will depend upon whether a court determines that he should have known what he was signing. Therefore, the option C holds true.
What is the significance of personal liability?Personal liability can be referred to or considered as the liability that has to be borne by the person in his or her individual capacity. For example, a sole proprietorship has personal liability, wherein the owner of the business is liable for all the losses in an organization, if any.
For the above situation, Martha will be decided by law is he is personally liable towards Henry. This is because he is given the protection to claim fraud in the factum, and the liability of Martha will be determined by the verdict or the decision given by a court of law in this regard.
Therefore, the option C holds true and states regarding the significance of personal liability.
Learn more about personal liability here:
https://brainly.com/question/28222036
#SPJ5
What should boaters do when operating a vessel on different waterways?
Answer:
Pay that country
Explanation:
They have free access to their own registered country, most register under Liberia, they have very little tax
When operating a vessel on different waterways the boaters should not spread non-native species to another area.
What is waterways?
Waterways is one of the form of water body through which ships can be navigated.
The species of non-natives should not be spread by the boaters in another area by operating a vessel on different waterways. They should maintain a safer speed, also helped other vessel if seen outside and the communications from the radio etc. can be applied by other waterways.
Therefore, the boaters should not spread non-native species at the time of working on a vessel.
Learn more about the waterways in the related link:
https://brainly.com/question/2453542
#SPJ5
What is a "poison pill" in the US? (also called "shareholders' rights plan). How does it work? Why does it render the acquisition of further shares in a target company, fruitless or impossibly expensive?
Thanks!!
Answer:
A poison pill is a defense tactic utilized by a target company to prevent or discourage hostile takeover attempts. Poison pills allow existing shareholders the right to purchase additional shares at a discount, effectively diluting the ownership interest of a new, hostile party.A poison pill is a defense tactic utilized by a target company to prevent or discourage hostile takeover attempts. Poison pills allow existing shareholders the right to purchase additional shares at a discount, effectively diluting the ownership interest of a new, hostile party.