Suppose that Georgia enacts a law requiring the use of contoured rear-fender mudguards on trucks and trailers operating within its state lines. The statute further makes it illegal for trucks and trailers to use straight mudguards. In 35 states, straight mudguards are legal. Moreover, in the neighboring state of Florida, straight mudguards are explicitly required by law. There is some evidence suggesting that contoured mudguards might be a little safer than straight mudguards. Discuss whether or not this Georgia statute would violated the commerce clause of the U. S. Constitution.

Explanation:

If the clause was inappropriately used, that is when there is a violation of the commerce clause of the constitution of the United States. Under article 1, section it starts by saying that "The Congress shall have power to...".If the Congress decides not to exercise such power, that does not violate its given clause, but the question to be expressed, is that is it a violation of the commerce clause to disallow the "mud guard law" of either of any state?. My response is no.

It is actually not ideal for a truck to make a journey from Florida to Georgia and from Georgia to Florida considering their contradictory law, but one can't always avoid it. Although both states may have pure intentions of not wanting to rebuff each other, overruling such law is based on principle.

anticipatory breach of contract

as the name suggests, an anticipatory breach is a breach of contract before the time of performance. so, if a promisor denies to perform his promise and signifies his unwillingness before the time for performance, then it is an anticipatory breach of contract.

and

actual breach of contract

while an anticipatory breach is before the time of performance, an actual breach of contract is on the scheduled time of performance of the contract. an actual breach of contract can be committed either.

hope this . : )

i gotcha bud, the answer is d

i hope this . have a nice day, make sure to take care of yourself. you're loved < 3