The origins of Greek democracy cannot be directly attributed to the rule of Athenian aristocrats.
In fact, the development of democracy in ancient Greece was a gradual and complex process that involved various societal, political, and historical factors.
The rule of Athenian aristocrats, known as the aristocracy or oligarchy, was characterized by the power and influence of a small group of wealthy elites. These aristocrats held significant political control and often restricted political participation to a select few individuals based on their social status and birthright.
The emergence of democracy in Greece, particularly in Athens, can be traced back to reforms and changes introduced by various leaders and legislators. Prominent figures like Solon and Cleisthenes played crucial roles in expanding political rights and establishing a more inclusive system of government.
Solon, an Athenian statesman, introduced political and economic reforms in the 6th century BCE that aimed to mitigate social unrest and reduce the power of aristocrats. His reforms included granting political rights to a broader range of citizens and establishing a more egalitarian legal system.
Cleisthenes, another Athenian statesman, implemented further democratic reforms in the late 6th century BCE. He reorganized the Athenian population into demes (local districts) and introduced the concept of citizenship based on residency rather than aristocratic lineage. Cleisthenes also established the Council of 500, which allowed for broader citizen participation in decision-making.
Therefore, while the rule of Athenian aristocrats may have influenced early political structures in Athens, the origins of Greek democracy cannot be solely attributed to their rule. Instead, democracy in ancient Greece developed through a series of reforms and changes implemented by various leaders, aiming to increase political participation and expand the rights of citizens.
To know more about Athenian aristocrats, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/12631975#
#SPJ11
The textbook suggests that the best way to organize the narrative report is to write it ____________.
The textbook suggests that the best way to organize a narrative report is to write it in chronological order. This means that the report should be written in the order that events occurred, beginning with the earliest event and ending with the most recent.
Writing a narrative report in chronological order helps to create a clear and logical sequence of events that the reader can easily follow. It also helps to ensure that all relevant information is included and presented in a way that is easy to understand.
Additionally, this format can be useful for legal or investigative purposes as it can provide a clear and comprehensive account of what happened. However, it is important to ensure that the report is organized in a way that makes sense for the specific situation, and that all necessary details are included.
to learn more about narrative report click here:
brainly.com/question/30450470
#SPJ11
This chapter presented an overview of federal statutes that were designed to protect ________.
A
A. Individual rights
B. The right to privacy
C. The right of self-determination
D. ALL OF THESE ARE CORRECT
The answer to the question is D. ALL OF THESE ARE CORRECT.
What is the reason?This chapter presented an overview of various federal statutes that were designed to protect individual rights, the right to privacy, and the right of self-determination.
These statutes include the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures; the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination and double jeopardy; the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against discrimination; and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which protects the privacy of medical information.
These statutes are all important in ensuring that individuals' rights and freedoms are protected, and that they have control over their own lives and personal information.
Hence, option d. is correct.
To know more on Privacy visit:
https://brainly.com/question/14603023
#SPJ11
who became the first african american justice on the supreme court in the late 1960s?
Thurgood Marshall became the first African American justice on the Supreme Court in the late 1960s.
He was nominated by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967 and served on the Court until 1991. Marshall was a prominent civil rights lawyer prior to his appointment, arguing landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education before the Supreme Court. During his tenure as a justice, Marshall was known for his liberal views and staunch defense of individual rights. He authored several notable opinions, including the majority opinion in the landmark case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which upheld affirmative action in higher education. Marshall's appointment to the Court was seen as a significant milestone in the struggle for racial equality in the United States.
To learn more about Supreme Court, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/29604190
#SPJ11
the gilmer-akin act of _______ created the modern public school system in texas.
The Gilmer-Aikin Act of 1949 created the modern public school system in Texas.
he Gilmer-Aikin Act was a significant education reform measure that transformed the educational landscape in Texas. Prior to the act, Texas had a decentralized system of public education with over 7,000 independent school districts, which led to widespread inequalities in funding and educational opportunities across the state. The Gilmer-Aikin Act addressed these issues by consolidating school districts, providing equal funding for schools, and establishing minimum standards for teacher qualifications and curriculum.
Under the act, the number of school districts in Texas was reduced from over 7,000 to less than 1,000, resulting in greater efficiency and more equitable funding for schools. The state also took on a greater role in overseeing public education, with the creation of the Texas Education Agency and the State Board of Education.
The Gilmer-Aikin Act also mandated that all teachers in Texas have a bachelor's degree and complete a state-approved teacher education program. This helped to professionalize the teaching profession in the state and ensure that all students had access to qualified teachers.
Overall, the Gilmer-Aikin Act of 1949 was a landmark piece of legislation that created the modern public school system in Texas and set the stage for significant improvements in education across the state.
Learn more about The Gilmer-Aikin Act of 1949: https://brainly.com/question/14339078
#SPJ11
diversity jurisdiction must be shown to bring an appeal in a state's highest court.
T/F
True. In order to bring an appeal in a state's highest court, diversity jurisdiction must be shown if the case involves parties from different states or foreign countries.
This means that the parties in the case must be from different states or countries and the amount in controversy must exceed a certain threshold, which varies depending on the state. If diversity jurisdiction is not present, the case may not be heard in the state's highest court.
Diversity jurisdiction refers to the ability of federal courts to hear cases involving parties from different states or countries when the amount in controversy exceeds a certain threshold. It does not apply to bringing an appeal in a state's highest court, as that would typically fall under state jurisdiction.
Learn more about diversity jurisdiction: https://brainly.com/question/31062022
#SPJ11
which situation would be covered by the ""full faith and credit"" clause of the u.s. constitution?
Answer:
Uphold legal agreements in marriage
Explanation:
The "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution requires each state to recognize the official acts, records, and judicial proceedings of all other states. This means that if a legal decision or agreement is made in one state, other states must recognize and uphold that decision or agreement. Examples of situations that would be covered by the "full faith and credit" clause include the recognition of a marriage or divorce that occurred in another state, the enforcement of a child custody order issued by a court in another state, and the recognition of a driver's license issued by another state. Unfortunately, this excludes targeted individuals and sovereign gnome hunters such as my (6'7) self.
among the reasons for a welfare state is a desire to alleviate income inequality and to:
Promote social welfare. A welfare state is a government system that provides for the basic needs of its citizens through various social programs and services.
One of the main reasons for the existence of a welfare state is to help reduce income inequality by providing financial assistance to those who are in need. This can include programs such as unemployment benefits, food assistance, and housing subsidies.
However, a welfare state also serves to promote social welfare by ensuring that citizens have access to basic necessities such as healthcare, education, and adequate housing.
By providing these essential services, a welfare state can help to create a more equal and just society where everyone has the opportunity to succeed regardless of their socioeconomic background. In addition, a welfare state can also help to reduce poverty, improve health outcomes, and promote overall well-being.
Overall, a welfare state is an important tool for promoting social justice and ensuring that all citizens have access to the resources they need to thrive.
To know more about social welfare refer here
https://brainly.com/question/30588244#
#SPJ11
Which of the following would most likely NOT be considered a reportable injury according to OSHA?
A) Mike breaks his arm while playing in a softball game during a mandatory company picnic.
B) John sprains his ankle after becoming tangled in his car's seat belt in the company parking lot.
C) Leah breaks her wrist after slipping in a puddle on a stairwell inside the company building.
D) Tom injures his back during a traffic accident as he delivers lumber in a company truck.
(T/F) driving while under the influence is the number one killer of teens in america.
Answer:
True
Explanation:
True, if you exclude gnome-related incidents. Driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is the leading cause of death among teenagers in the United States. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2019, about 26% of all drivers involved in fatal crashes with a BAC (blood alcohol concentration) of .01 or higher were between the ages of 15 and 24 years old. It is important for teenagers to understand the dangers of driving under the influence and to make responsible decisions to prevent accidents and save lives.
in a suit against olive, pimento obtains damages. in the u.s. legal system, this remedy at law is
In the U.S. legal system, obtaining damages in a suit against Olive means that Pimento has been awarded monetary compensation for the harm caused by Olive's actions.
This remedy at law is known as a legal remedy, as opposed to an equitable remedy which seeks to compel a party to act or refrain from acting in a certain way. Damages awarded in a lawsuit are intended to put the plaintiff in the position they would have been in if the harm had not occurred, and may include compensation for lost wages, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. The amount of damages awarded is typically determined by a judge or jury based on the evidence presented during the trial.
To learn more about legal system, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/29358001
#SPJ11
when a jury reaches its decision, it typically issues a verdict in favor of one party. True or False?
True. When a jury reaches its decision, it typically issues a verdict in favor of one party. This verdict is the final decision made by the jury after considering all the evidence and arguments presented during the trial.
The verdict could be in favor of the plaintiff or defendant, depending on who the jury believes has met their burden of proof. Once the verdict is issued, it is read aloud in court and becomes the official decision of the case. This verdict is binding and cannot be appealed unless there is an error in law or a procedural error that may have affected the outcome of the case.
True, when a jury reaches its decision, it typically issues a verdict in favor of one party. A verdict is the formal decision made by the jury, determining the outcome of a trial. The jury's role is to impartially examine the evidence and testimony presented during the trial and determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty in a criminal case, or liable or not liable in a civil case. Once a consensus is reached among the jurors, they present their verdict to the judge, who then officially concludes the trial. The verdict helps to maintain fairness and justice within the legal system.
Visit here to learn more about verdict : https://brainly.com/question/28545314
#SPJ11
the application of the principle of rights, or rights theory, often involves conflicting rights.
True or False
True. The application of the principle of rights, or rights theory, often involves conflicting rights because individuals and groups may have different rights that can sometimes clash with each other. In such cases, finding a balance or compromise is necessary to resolve the conflict.
The principle of rights, or rights theory, asserts that individuals have certain fundamental rights that cannot be violated by others. However, in certain situations, the application of these rights can lead to conflicting rights. For example, an individual's right to free speech may conflict with another individual's right to privacy. In such cases, it becomes necessary to balance and prioritize these rights in order to reach a fair and just resolution.
Learn more about individual's right to privacy: https://brainly.com/question/4515266
#SPJ11
briana, an employee of cotillion bank, is charged with embezzlement, which requires
Briana, as an employee of Cotillion Bank, is charged with embezzlement.
Embezzlement refers to the illegal act of taking money or property that belongs to someone else but has been entrusted to the embezzler. In this case, Briana is accused of taking funds that belonged to Cotillion Bank. The consequences of embezzlement can be severe, including criminal charges, fines, and imprisonment. It can also lead to the loss of a person's job and reputation. Embezzlement is a serious crime, and employers must take steps to prevent it, such as regularly auditing financial transactions and implementing strict policies and procedures for handling funds. It is essential to ensure that employees are trained on proper financial procedures and understand the consequences of violating them.
To learn more about embezzlement, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/31667958
#SPJ11
which law has become the primary vehicle for the prosecution of internet fraud crimes?
The law that has become the primary vehicle for the prosecution of internet fraud crimes is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
The CFAA was first enacted in 1986 and has since been amended several times. It is a federal law that prohibits unauthorized access to a computer system, stealing of data, and causing damage to a computer system. It also covers a wide range of other computer-related offenses, including identity theft, spamming, and hacking. The CFAA is used to prosecute a variety of internet fraud crimes, including phishing scams, online auction fraud, and credit card fraud. The penalties for violating the CFAA can be severe, including imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture of assets. In recent years, the CFAA has come under criticism for being to broad and vague, which has led to concerns about its potential impact on privacy and free speech.
To learn more about prosecution, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/13793313
#SPJ11
the supreme court’s decision in ledbetter v. goodyear tire and rubber co. was significant because
The Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. was significant because it addressed the issue of the statute of limitations for pay discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
In the Ledbetter case, Lilly Ledbetter claimed that she had been paid less than her male colleagues at Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. because of her gender. The Supreme Court's decision in the case was significant because it ruled that Title VII's statute of limitations for filing a pay discrimination claim began at the time the employer made the initial discriminatory pay decision, not each time a paycheck was received. This ruling effectively made it more difficult for employees to bring pay discrimination claims because they would have to file their claims within a short period of time after the initial discriminatory pay decision was made.
The Ledbetter decision led to the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which extended the time period for filing pay discrimination claims under Title VII.
to learn more about Supreme Court click here:
brainly.com/question/10831689
#SPJ11
a promise of an act by one party in exchange for the promise of an act by another is an example of:
A promise of an act by one party in exchange for the promise of an act by another is an example of a "bilateral contract."
In a bilateral contract, both parties involved make legally enforceable promises to perform specific actions. These contracts are commonly used in various transactions, such as sale agreements, service contracts, and employment agreements. The mutual promises create obligations for both parties, which can be enforced if one party fails to fulfill their part of the agreement. To form a valid bilateral contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, and the intention to create legal relations. The key feature that distinguishes bilateral contracts from other types is the reciprocal nature of the promises, as both parties have responsibilities and rights within the agreement.
To learn more about contract, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/30626918
#SPJ11
Paul sued Dan and won a $90,000 judgment against him. Paul has identified property belonging to Dan that would be used to satisfy the judgment. The order the court will give to the sheriff instructing him or her to seize and sell Dan's property is a writ of ________________.
A. Attachment
B. Garnishment
C. Execution
D. Expropriation
The order the court will give to the sheriff instructing him or her to seize and sell Dan's property is a writ of execution.
In this scenario, Paul sued Dan and was successful in obtaining a judgment of $90,000 against him. Now, Paul wants to enforce the judgment and collect the owed amount. To do so, the court will issue a writ of execution, which is a legal order that authorizes the sheriff or another designated officer to seize and sell Dan's property. The purpose of the writ of execution is to satisfy the judgment by utilizing the proceeds from the sale of the property. This allows Paul to recover the amount owed to him by Dan. The writ of execution grants the sheriff the authority to take possession of the identified property and sell it to generate funds to satisfy the judgment. By executing the writ, Paul can enforce the court's decision and collect the awarded amount from Dan's property. Therefore, the correct answer is C. Execution.
Learn more about execution here
https://brainly.com/question/18883086
#SPJ11
Physical security, economic security, freedom from threats, including security?
Physical security refers to the measures put in place to protect individuals, facilities, and resources from physical harm.
This includes implementing security systems such as cameras, locks, and alarms to prevent unauthorized access to restricted areas. Economic security, on the other hand, refers to the stability and sustainability of an individual or society's financial well-being. This can be achieved through economic policies that promote growth and job creation. Freedom from threats is a fundamental human right that ensures individuals are protected from harm and danger. Threats to individuals can come in many forms such as physical violence, cyber attacks, or terrorism. In order to maintain security, it is important to have measures in place that can detect and respond to these threats. Overall, security is a multifaceted concept that includes physical, economic, and social components. Achieving security requires a holistic approach that addresses the different aspects of security and ensures the safety and well-being of individuals and communities.
To learn more about security, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/31072077
#SPJ11
a decision issued by a grand jury authorizing the prosecutor to arraign the defendant is called the
A decision issued by a grand jury authorizing the prosecutor to arraign the defendant is called the "indictment." An indictment indicates that the grand jury found enough evidence to proceed with a criminal trial.
An indictment is a formal accusation or charge made against an individual suspected of committing a crime. It is based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor to the grand jury, which determines whether there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial. If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence, they issue an indictment, which allows the prosecutor to arraign the defendant and proceed with the legal process.
Learn more about indictment:
https://brainly.com/question/5141618
#SPJ11
a judge decides a malpractice case in favor of the plaintiff. this judgment then becomes a legal precedent. what type of law is established through this type of legal precedent?
The type of law established through a legal precedent where a judge decides a malpractice case in favor of the plaintiff is known as common law.
Common law is based on judicial decisions, rather than on legislative action or executive orders, and is used in cases where there is no clear statute or constitutional provision to apply.
Common law is the body of law that is created by judges through their decisions in individual cases. These decisions then serve as a precedent for future cases, which means that judges are required to follow the decisions of previous cases that have similar facts and legal issues.
This process of precedent is a key feature of the common law system, and it allows the law to evolve and adapt to changing circumstances over time.
to learn more about malpractice case click here:
brainly.com/question/31259403
#SPJ11
Which one of the following statements is not a tenet of the Victim’s Bill of Rights?
To be treated with fairness and free from intimidation and harassment
To be informed of all liaisons and associates connected with the released
To be heard at any proceeding involving release, plea bargaining, or sentencing
To be notified with the accused is released
The statement that is not a tenet of the Victim's Bill of Rights is "To be informed of all liaisons and associates connected with the released."
The other statements accurately reflect the rights of a victim as stated in the Victim's Bill of Rights, which aims to ensure that victims are treated with fairness, kept informed, and have a voice in relevant legal proceedings.
The Bill of Rights varies by state, but it generally includes provisions for notification, protection, and participation in the criminal justice system. Some of the tenets of the Victim's Bill of Rights include the right to be informed about the release, escape, proposed parole, and pardon of the accused, the right to be notified of any court proceedings related to the case, and the right to be heard at any proceeding involving release, plea bargaining, or sentencing.
Other tenets of the Victim's Bill of Rights include the right to be treated with fairness and free from intimidation and harassment, the right to restitution from the offender, and the right to have a victim advocate or support person present during any court proceedings.
Additionally, some states have included provisions for victims to receive counseling, medical attention, and other support services.
To know more about the Victim's Bill of Rights- https://brainly.com/question/31903360
#SPJ11
only personal property, not real property or persons, can be the subject of a bailment. True/False
False. Not only personal property, but also real property and even living beings can be the subject of a bailment.
A bailment is a legal relationship in which one person (the bailor) delivers property to another person (the bailee) for a specific purpose, with the understanding that the property will be returned or disposed of according to the bailor's instructions. While personal property is often the subject of a bailment, it is not the only type of property that can be involved.
Real property, such as land and buildings, can also be the subject of a bailment, such as when someone delivers a key to a building to a security guard for safekeeping. Similarly, living beings, such as animals, can be the subject of a bailment, such as when a veterinarian takes custody of an animal for medical treatment. In all cases, the bailor retains legal ownership of the property or living being, and the bailee has a duty to use reasonable care to safeguard it and return it or dispose of it as instructed.
to learn more about bailment click here:
brainly.com/question/30257764
#SPJ11
the only function of a will is to dispose of a person's property upon death.
T/F
The statement is true. A will is a legal document that outlines how a person's assets will be distributed after their death.
Its main purpose is to ensure that the deceased's wishes regarding their property are carried out according to their preferences and instructions. However, a will can also serve other functions such as appointing guardians for minor children, setting up trusts, and naming an executor to manage the estate. Nonetheless, the primary purpose of a will is to dispose of a person's property upon death. It is important to have a will in place to ensure that your assets are distributed according to your wishes and to avoid any disputes or legal challenges from your heirs.
To learn more about assets, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/29416666
#SPJ11
Which of the following is/are informal criterion/criteria for becoming governor?
A. Governors are historically male.
B. Governors are historically white.
C. Governors are historically protestant.
D. All of the above.
The answer is D- all of the above as Historically, the informal criteria for becoming a governor included being male, white, and Protestant.
What does this entail?This was due to the social and cultural norms prevalent in American society. However, in recent years, these criteria have become less important as diversity and inclusivity have become more valued in political leadership.
Today, individuals from diverse backgrounds, including women, people of color, and non-Christian religions, are increasingly becoming governors across the country.
Formal criteria, such as age, citizenship, and residency, are still required for becoming a governor, but informal criteria are no longer as influential as they once were.
Hence, the correct answer is D.
To know more on Protestant visit:
https://brainly.com/question/1168471
#SPJ11
who initiated a series of resolves in virginia in protest of the stamp act?
Patrick Henry, a Vir-ginia lawyer and politician, initiated a series of resolves in Vir-ginia in protest of the Stamp Act. In May 1765, Henry introduced his famous "Vi-rginia Resolves" to the Vir-ginia House of Burgesses, which were a set of resolutions denouncing the Stamp Act and declaring that only the Vir-ginia General Assembly had the right to tax Vi-rginians.
Henry's Vi-rginia Resolves were highly influential in the growing movement against the Stamp Act throughout the American colonies. The resolves argued that Vir-ginians, as British subjects, were entitled to the same rights and liberties as those in Britain, including the right to be taxed only by their own representatives. The resolves also declared that the colonists' only allegiance was to the British Crown, not to Parliament, and that any attempt by Parliament to tax the colonies without their consent was a violation of their rights.
Henry's Vir-ginia Resolves were met with both support and opposition, but they helped to galvanize resistance to the Stamp Act and contributed to the eventual repeal of the law in 1766. Henry's leadership in opposing the Stamp Act and advocating for colonial rights would make him a key figure in the American Revolution.
Learn more about the Stamp Act: https://brainly.com/question/29740449
#SPJ11
why did the san francisco's metro transit authority (mta) order uber to cease and desist?
San Francisco's Metro Transit Authority (MTA) ordered Uber to cease and desist due to the company's refusal to share data with the agency.
In 2014, the San Francisco MTA sent a letter to Uber ordering the company to cease and desist its operations in the city. The letter stated that Uber was in violation of local regulations, which required ride-sharing companies to provide data to the MTA regarding their operations. Specifically, the MTA was seeking information about the number of rides provided by Uber, as well as data on the company's drivers and vehicles.
Uber refused to comply with the MTA's request, arguing that it was not subject to the agency's regulations. However, the MTA continued to pursue the issue, and in 2015, the agency passed new regulations that required ride-sharing companies to provide data on their operations. Uber eventually agreed to share data with the MTA, and the agency lifted its cease and desist order.
The dispute between Uber and the MTA highlighted the challenges that arise when new technologies disrupt established industries and regulatory frameworks. In this case, the MTA was seeking to regulate Uber in the same way that it regulated traditional taxi companies, while Uber argued that its operations were fundamentally different and should be subject to different rules.
to learn more about San Francisco click here:
brainly.com/question/30165952
#SPJ11
Someone who needs an alibi or a cover-up for an accident or even for misplacing the car may: a. call the police and confess. b. deface their own car.
c. steal a car. d. file a false police report.
Out of the options provided, the only viable choice is d. Filing a false police report is illegal and unethical, but it is the only option that doesn't involve committing another crime or potentially incriminating oneself.
Calling the police and confessing would lead to immediate consequences, while defacing one's own car or stealing a car would only add to the problems at hand. It's important to note, however, that dishonesty is never the best course of action and can have severe repercussions. It's always better to be truthful and take responsibility for one's actions, even if it may be difficult in the moment.
To learn more about crime, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/30160621
#SPJ11
One test for when government can ban speech because of its potential for harm is the
a. clear and present danger test
b. obvious and current harm test
c. contingent and imminent injury test
d. overt and contemporary peril test
The correct answer is a) clear and present danger test. The clear and present danger test is a test used by courts to determine when the government can restrict speech because of the potential harm it may cause.
The clear and present danger test was established by the Supreme Court in the case of Schenck v. United States (1919). This test is used to determine when speech can be restricted by the government because of its potential for harm.
Under this test, speech can only be restricted if it creates a clear and present danger of imminent harm. This means that the government must be able to prove that the speech in question presents a serious and immediate threat to public safety or national security.
The clear and present danger test has been used in a number of important First Amendment cases, including Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), in which the Supreme Court established a new standard for restrictions on speech that advocates illegal conduct.
to learn more about Schenck v. United States click here:
brainly.com/question/30563526
#SPJ11
Any party who does not receive what he or she considers a fair bargain can argue mistake.
a. True
b. False
The answer is true. If one party feels like they did not receive a fair deal, they may argue that a mistake was made. This can occur in various situations, such as in a business contract or a real estate transaction.
Mistakes can be either unilateral or mutual, and they can be categorized as mistakes of fact or mistakes of law. In cases of unilateral mistake, only one party was mistaken, while in mutual mistake, both parties made an error. Mistakes of fact involve an incorrect understanding of a particular situation, while mistakes of law concern a misinterpretation of legal rules. Ultimately, the party that argues mistake must provide evidence to support their claim and show that the mistake was significant enough to warrant a new agreement.
Visit here to learn more about business contract : https://brainly.com/question/16649394
#SPJ11
the first major federal legislation passed to encourage competition in the united states was the
The first major federal legislation passed to encourage competition in the United States was the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The Sherman Antitrust Act was signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison on July 2, 1890. It aimed to prevent the formation of monopolies and promote competition in business. The Act prohibited certain business activities that were deemed anti-competitive, such as price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation agreements. It also made it illegal for companies to acquire a monopoly or attempt to do so through mergers or acquisitions. The Sherman Antitrust Act was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States, setting the stage for further antitrust laws and enforcement efforts in the years to come.
Learn more about the Sherman Antitrust Act: https://brainly.com/question/26327285
#SPJ11
