Ted is the owner and chief executive officer of a business. he recently began an advertising campaign to promote a new product that is regulated by state law. the law is somewhat unclear. before launching the campaign, he researched the relevant law and consulted with his attorney in an effort to comply with the law. nevertheless, the attorney general of his state has filed a lawsuit against him for deceptive advertising. ted's best defense is that:

He acted in a good faith

Explanation:

A good faith defense is used when a person is under legal charges and intentional fraud. this defense doesn't involve an intentional or willingness to defraud since those are essential to finding charges. The burden of proof isn't on the defendant to prove their faith. But the state has to prove that the defendant acted with the specific intent to defraud another party. In essence, they didn't act in good faith. someone who expresses an honest opinion doesn't charge as defraud.  

There is the factor that doesn't establish fraudulent intent includes as  

So if someone believes in a business venture is sounds well and will succeed.

hi there!

moors is essentially another word for muslims.

the moors invaded spain around year 700, during their time ruling spain the muslims promoted religious tolerance (moors tolerated jews who were viewed as outcasts by northerners), the moors as well had a great impact on their language, and architecture (palaces were created).

i hope this !

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.