One afternoon, over a couple of cold beers, charles tells mark that he may have a right-of-way to cross his land so that mark can get to a fishing pond. two weeks later, while he is walking across charles's land, mark hears charles yelling "get off my property, you trespasser! " if mark sues charles to enforce his right-of-way, a court will:

Likely rule against Mark.

Mark and Charles had an oral agreement over a few years and nothing was put into writing. This would trigger the statute of frauds, wherein certain types of agreements are required to be memorialized in writing.

This means that there is a situation in which two people are having to be taken at their word. On top of that, the agreement was made while they were impaired.

If a court didn't rule against Mark at the outset, there would be an investigation into whether the agreement was enforceable, how impaired they were, whether anyone else heard them, and what the historic uses were but there isn't enough time for a prescriptive easement or adverse possession. But this is likely a summary judgment case based on statute of frauds.

depends on what they need

hello,

answer: a federal government has final authority on interstate/inter provincial  and international affairs, a confederation is one where the central/national government or authority is governing body what does not have final say over the same matters. hopefully this and i will try again if you don't like this answer : )

best of luck!