subject
Social Studies, 10.03.2020 03:51 cody665

A lease between Mia and Niles for residential property contains an exculpatory clause. This clause is most likely a. enforceable if either party is in a business important to the public. b. enforceable if an event occurs to which the clause applies. c. unenforceable. d. enforceable as a matter of public policy.

ansver
Answers: 3

Another question on Social Studies

question
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 13:00
Which groups of people most directly benefited from song innovations in the song dynasty‘s open border policy?
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 22:10
When individuals with a stake in an issue affecting them begin to propose and develop solutions to a problem, they engage in
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 23.06.2019 01:30
Which statement about jews is not correct? question 6 options: a: jews had been disliked and persecuted for many centuries. b: jews lived and worked in businesses throughout germany. c: many germans blamed jews for germany’s economic problems. d: jews began migrating to germany after the end of world war i.
Answers: 2
question
Social Studies, 23.06.2019 05:30
Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.
Answers: 2
You know the right answer?
A lease between Mia and Niles for residential property contains an exculpatory clause. This clause i...
Questions
question
Geography, 30.12.2019 07:31
Questions on the website: 13722361