No, DFC does not prepay the OC Expert's deposition fee. DFC will invoice the citizen for the OC Expert's fee, and the citizen is responsible for making the payment directly to the OC Expert.
What is fee ?Fee is a payment made to a person or organization for services rendered. It is typically charged as a flat rate or hourly rate, and can be paid either in advance or after the service has been provided. Fees can be paid for a variety of services, such as legal advice, medical treatments, or educational courses. They can also be paid to an individual or organization for the use of goods, property, or other resources. Fees are an important source of income for many businesses and organizations, and in most cases, payment of the fee is required before the service can be rendered.
To learn more about fee
https://brainly.com/question/29578294
#SPJ1
Assumption of risk is a(n) _____ defense. a. proactiveb. positivec. conciliatory d. affirmativee. none of the other choices
Assumption of risk is a(n) affirmative defense. option (D)
Assumption of risk is an affirmative defense in tort law that can be raised by a defendant to escape liability for injuries suffered by the plaintiff. The defense is based on the idea that the plaintiff knew of the risks involved in an activity and voluntarily assumed those risks, and therefore cannot hold the defendant responsible for any resulting injuries.
To successfully invoke the defense of assumption of risk, the defendant must show that the plaintiff had knowledge of the risks involved in the activity, voluntarily participated in the activity despite the risks and that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by those risks. This defense is often raised in cases involving sports or recreational activities, where participants assume certain inherent risks.
Therefore, option (d) affirmative is the correct choice to describe the assumption of risk as a defense in tort law.
Learn more about affirmative defense
https://brainly.com/question/30021859
#SPJ4
Larry breaks into the local pharmacy where he steals a variety of controlled substances. In an effort to cover up his burglary, Larry sets fire to building. Larry has committed:
Larry has committed two separate crimes: burglary and arson.
Burglary is a crime that involves the unlawful entry into a building or other structure with the intent to commit a felony or theft. In this case, Larry entered the local pharmacy unlawfully with the intent to steal controlled substances, which is a felony. Therefore, he has committed the crime of burglary.
Arson is a separate crime that involves the willful and malicious burning of someone else's property. In this case, Larry set fire to the building in an attempt to cover up his burglary. By doing so, he not only caused damage to the pharmacy building, but he also put people's lives in danger. Therefore, he has committed the crime of arson.
Larry may face separate charges for each of these crimes, and the penalties for burglary and arson can be significant, including fines, imprisonment, and other consequences.
To know more about burglary here:
https://brainly.com/question/30777991
#SPJ4
O transfers a sum "in trust for A for life, then to A's first child to reach 25." A has no child age 25 or older. There is no validating life; the contingent remainder is void. You cannot prove that A's first child to reach 25 will do so within 21 years after A's death.
O transfers a sum "in trust for A for life, then to A's first child to reach 25." A has no child age 25 or older. There is no validating life; the contingent remainder is void. You cannot prove that A's first child to reach 25 will do so within 21 years after A's death: the remainder is valid.
The step to determine whether the given interest might not vest within the perpetuity period of lives in being plus 21 years." The Rule Against Perpetuities is a rule that strikes down contingent interests that might vest too remotely. The essential thing to grasp about the Rule is that it is a rule of logical proof.
What we are looking for is a person who will enable us to prove that the contingent interest will vest or fail within the life, or at the death, of that person, or within 21 years after that person's death. This person, if found, is called the validating life.
Learn more about contingent, here:
https://brainly.com/question/30478373
#SPJ4
T/F An expert may testify that a child is telling the truth in his testimony at trial.
The veracity of a child's testimony at trial may be proven by an expert witness. This statement is true.
In some jurisdictions, experts are allowed to testify on the reliability and credibility of a child witness's testimony. Such experts may include psychologists, psychiatrists, or social workers who have experience working with children who have been victims of abuse or trauma.
These experts may use various methods to evaluate the child's testimony, such as conducting interviews or administering psychological tests. However, in other jurisdictions, expert testimony on a child witness's credibility may be limited or excluded altogether, as it is ultimately the job of the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses.
Furthermore, it is important to note that even if an expert testifies to the truthfulness of a child's testimony, it is ultimately up to the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witness. The expert's testimony may be considered along with other factors, such as the child's age, maturity, and ability to recall events accurately.
To learn more about testimony
https://brainly.com/question/29244222
#SPJ4
Eric, the operations head of an investment bank, decides to shift the country headquarters of his organization from New York to Chicago. He implements his decision and starts working toward it by taking his board members' consent for granted. In this scenario, Eric portrays what style of leadership?
Eric portrays an autocratic style of leadership. This type of leadership is when a leader takes decisions without taking into account the opinion of his team members or subordinates.
In making the decision to shift the headquarters of the organization, Eric did not consult anyone and simply took his board members' consent for granted.
Autocratic leadership is generally seen as an outdated style, as it does not involve allowing members of the team to have their opinions considered or to be involved in the decision-making process.
It can lead to resentment from team members and has been linked to lower levels of motivation and creativity. Therefore, it is important for Eric to consider the opinions of his team and involve them in the decision-making process in order to ensure that his decisions are accepted and supported by all.
Know more about organization here
https://brainly.com/question/13278945#
#SPJ11
A statement in the employee handbook that the employee or the employer may terminate the relationship at any time, for any reason, with or without cause or notice is called a/an ____ statement.implied contracttemporary employmentemployment-at-willno-fault-employment
A statement in the employee handbook that the employee or the employer may terminate the relationship at any time, for any reason, with or without cause or notice is called an employment-at-will statement. The correct option is c.
Employment-at-will is a common law doctrine that applies in many states in the United States, including Texas. It means that absent a contract or statutory provision to the contrary, an employer can terminate an employee at any time, for any reason, with or without cause or notice, and an employee can leave their job at any time, for any reason, with or without notice.
The employment-at-will doctrine is often expressed in employee handbooks or other employment policies, and the language described here is a typical example of an employment-at-will statement. Therefore, the correct option is c.
To know more about employee handbook here:
https://brainly.com/question/5754826
#SPJ4
Employers must comply with a variety of federal and state laws as part of their efforts when developing and maintaining healthy, safe, and secure workforces and working environments.TrueFalse
This is true, The accountability for maintenance of employee fitness and security is with all, Employees, Employers, Government.
Which act establishes duties and rights for employers and employees?Explanation: OSHA establishes coaching programs, develops mandatory job protection and fitness standards, and encourages to put in force them.
Safety is the business and responsibility of each worker and can be executed via appropriate education, training, use of protective equipment and by following security rules, regulations, standards, and laws. Each worker is accountable for grasp and practising splendid protection procedures.
Learn more about Employers rights here:
https://brainly.com/question/29571857#SPJ1O conveys "to A for life, then to B and her heirs, but if A is survived at his death by any children, then to such surviving children and their heirs." At the time of the conveyance, A is alive and has two children, C and D. What is the state of the title?
The state of the title is given as
A: Life estate
B: vested remainder in fee simple absolute subject to complete divestment and subject to open
C and D: Executory interest, shifting
Any payment, including those in fee simple or property in forever, or any State lease, whenever authorized or given by or on the authority of the Crown, is considered to have a state title.
The legal ownership of a piece of property or other asset is shown by a title. A title may represent the right to ownership of tangible or intangible assets, such as a trademark, or real property.
Learn more about the estate, here:
https://brainly.com/question/30565515
#SPJ4
Example 32. O devises land "to such of A's children who survive to age 25." Suppose that at O 's death A is alive and has three children, all of whom are younger than 25 and at least one of whom is younger than 4. .
No life estate precedes the interest given to A's children. The executory interest in A's children is void. The invalidating chain of events is that A may have another child after O 's death, and that child may reach age 25 more than 21 years after the death of A and A's three children who were alive at O 's death.
For a class gift to be vested under the Rule, the class must be closed and all conditions precedent for each and every member of the class must be satisfied, within the perpetuities period. Thus suppose a gift "to A for life, then to A's child, and A has living one child, B. B's remainder is vested subject to open, but it is not vested under the Rule Against Perpetuities until A dies and all of A's children are then in existence and identified. But because the remainder beneficiaries will all be ascertained at A's death, the remainder is valid.
Class closing rule: The possibility that more members may be added to a class at a remote point in the future creates a potential violation of the Rule Against Perpetuities for some class gifts.
Learn more about child, here:
https://brainly.com/question/28378740
#SPJ4
Explain this insurance law cases: Allendale Mutual Insurance Co. v. Excess Insurance Co. Limited
Allendale Mutual Insurance Co. v. Excess Insurance Co. Limited is an insurance law case that dealt with the issue of how to allocate insurance coverage when multiple insurance policies cover the same loss.
The case involved a construction project where a subcontractor caused damage to a building, and the general contractor's insurance and the subcontractor's insurance policies provided coverage for the loss. The issue was whether the general contractor's or subcontractor's policies should be responsible for the loss. The court held that the general contractor's policy was primary and the subcontractor's policy was in excess.
This meant that the general contractor's policy had to be exhausted before the subcontractor's policy would be triggered. The case established the principle of "other insurance" clauses, which are provisions commonly found in insurance policies that address how multiple policies will interact when more than one policy covers the same loss.
To learn more about insurance, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/27822778
#SPJ4
Cable thieves have been busy with attempts to steal electrical cables overnight on the outskirts of Tshwane. As a result of their illegal activities, a live electrical cable is hanging low over a public road. While driving towards his workplace, Mr Ngwenya, who lives on a smallholding outside Tshwane, sees the low-hanging cable. As a concerned and responsible citizen, Mr Ngwenya immediately reports it to ESKOM, explaining to the ESKOM officials that the low-hanging cable is creating an extremely hazardous situation. However, ESKOM does nothing to eliminate the danger. Late that afternoon, Mr Naidoo, a physically fit man, but with poor eyesight, jogs along the road. His head hits the low-hanging electrical cable, and he sustains severe injuries. Mr Naidoo wishes to institute a delictual action against ESKOM.
Write an opinion, properly substantiated with reference to case law, only on the wrongfulness of the conduct of the ESKOM official
A delict happens when one party commits a incorrect towards another. The fundamental factors of delict are conduct, wrongfulness, fault, causation and damage. Wrongfulness or unlawfulness: conduct which is objectively unreasonable and barring lawful justification.
How do you decide wrongfulness?The criterion of wrongfulness in the end depends on a judicial determination of whether, assuming all the other elements of delictual legal responsibility are present, it would be practical to impose liability on a defendant for the damages flowing from precise conduct.
Van der Walt and Midgley (Delict 145 fn 4) refer to these three cases as nicely as Lampert v Hefer (supra), as situations where the defence of volenti non suit iniuria has been successfully raised (since 1928).
Learn more about wrongfulness here:
https://brainly.com/question/6203610#SPJ1A criminal case differs from a tort case because:a. in a criminal case the victim does not receive compensationb. in a criminal case the victim is a witnessc. a criminal case is brought against the alleged wrongdoer by the governmentd. all of the specific answer choicese. none of the other specific choices
A criminal case differs from a tort case because: c. a criminal case is brought against the alleged wrongdoer by the government.
A criminal case is different from a tort case in that it is filed by a prosecutor on behalf of state or society and contains accusations of misconduct that are seen as crimes against society as a whole. In a criminal case, suspected offender is accused of a crime and, if proven guilty, might be punished with fines, jail time, or other types of punishment. The victim of the crime may testify in the criminal case, but neither they nor the prosecution are the ones who start it.
A tort case, on the other hand, deals with civil wrongs that hurt a person or piece of property, and it is often brought by the victim against the accused perpetrator. In a tort lawsuit, the plaintiff seeks restitution for losses brought on by the defendant's claimed wrongdoing; the victim is compensated rather than the offender is punished. However, In specific event that the tort action is successful, the victim can be compensated.
Read more about criminal case on:
https://brainly.com/question/4354802
#SPJ4
Who enforces sound violations at mass gatherings?
In most cases, sound violations at mass gatherings are enforced by local law enforcement or code enforcement officers.
These officials are responsible for ensuring that the event organizers comply with local noise ordinances and regulations. They may use sound level meters to measure the decibel levels of the event and issue warnings or citations if necessary.
However, it is important to note that enforcement methods can vary depending on the location and the specific regulations in place. In some cases, event organizers may be required to obtain permits or hire professional sound engineers to ensure that the event stays within acceptable noise levels. Ultimately, the goal is to balance the needs of the event organizers with the rights of nearby residents to enjoy a peaceful and quiet environment.
For more such questions on law enforcement, click on:
https://brainly.com/question/29422434
#SPJ11
A major purpose of tort law is to:a. replace the insurance industryb. provide compensation for injured parties by wrongdoers c. impose criminal penalties on the negligentd. ensure Equal Protection of the 14th Amendment is operational e. ensure the effective operation of the Due Process Clause
The major purpose of tort law is to provide compensation for injured parties by wrongdoers. option (b)
Tort law deals with civil wrongs committed by individuals or entities that result in harm or injury to another person or property. The law aims to provide a means of redress for those who have suffered losses due to the actions of others. Tort law is not concerned with criminal penalties, as it is a separate branch of law.
Additionally, while the principles of equal protection and due process are fundamental to the American legal system, they are not the primary focus of tort law.
Learn more about criminal penalties
https://brainly.com/question/31318693
#SPJ4
Intentional physical contact without consent may constitute:a. battery b. assaultc. defamation d. duresse. false imprisonment
Intentional physical contact without consent may constitute a) battery. Battery occurs when there is unlawful and intentional physical contact with another person without their consent.
It can be a punch, a slap, or any form of physical contact that results in injury or harm to the other person. Assault, on the other hand, is the intentional threat or attempt to cause physical harm to another person. It is the fear of harm rather than the actual harm itself.
Defamation, duress, and false imprisonment do not involve physical contact, but rather involve harm caused by words, coercion, or confinement, respectively.
To know more about physical contact visit:
https://brainly.com/question/29567827
#SPJ11
Self-defense is a based on the need to allow people who are attacked to take steps to protect themselves. a. proximate causeb. defense c. consent d. privilegee. none of the other choices
Self-defense is considered a legal defense, which means that it allows a person to use force to defend themselves against an imminent threat.
The defense is based on the idea that individuals have the right to protect themselves from harm and that their actions are justified if they are acting in self-defense. In order for self-defense to be a valid defense, the individual must be facing an immediate threat of harm and must use only the amount of force necessary to protect themselves.
This defense is different from "privilege", which refers to a legal exemption from liability, and "consent", which means that a person has given their agreement for an action to take place. "Proximate cause" refers to the event that directly leads to an injury or harm, but is not related to self-defense.
To know more about Self-defense visit:
https://brainly.com/question/1525962
#SPJ11
TRUE/FALSE. If there is a reference to a third party to determine a dispute, in most cases the decision is binding.
The statement "If there is a reference to a third party to determine a dispute, in most cases the decision is binding" is true because when parties agree to refer a dispute to a third party for resolution, they are essentially entering into a contract with that third party to be bound by their decision.
This is often done through a process called arbitration, where the parties agree to have a neutral third party make a binding decision based on the evidence presented to them.
In some cases, the decision of the third party can be challenged or appealed, but this is usually only allowed in limited circumstances, such as where there was a procedural error or bias on the part of the third party.
Overall, the use of third-party dispute resolution mechanisms can be a useful way for parties to resolve disputes without the need for lengthy and expensive litigation.
However, it is important for parties to carefully consider the terms of any such agreement and ensure that they are comfortable with the potential outcome before agreeing to refer their dispute to a third party.
To know more about disputes refer here:
https://brainly.com/question/29497887#
#SPJ11
explain the role 'referee during court proceedings' a judge has
Judicial involvement with human rights groups makes them more assertive by providing them with a platform to seek redress or justice for violations of their rights.
The judiciary is empowered to interpret the law, to review administrative decisions, and to supervise the enforcement of human rights protection to the fullest extent. This enables human rights groups to bring legal challenges against alleged violations and to seek remedies that are in line with international standards and practices.
Judicial involvement also helps to ensure that the right to a fair trial is respected when cases are taken to court. Furthermore, judicial involvement can provide human rights groups with the necessary legal backing to challenge government actions and policies that are in violation of human rights principles. This makes them more assertive in their activism and can ultimately lead to greater protection of human rights.
Know more about human rights protection here
https://brainly.com/question/28392863#
#SPJ11
alice alpha has a long standing grievance against ben beta and had threatened to kill him when alpha saw beta standing on a street corner amidst a crowd of people alpha pulled a gun and fried a shot
In this case, the main crime committed by Alice Alpha is attempted murder.
What crime did Alice Alpha commit?In this scenario, Alice Alpha pulled out a gun and fired a shot at Benjamin Beta with the intention to kill him, which constitutes attempted murder. Although she only grazed Beta's arm and did not succeed in killing him, her intention and action to kill Beta meet the criteria for attempted murder under criminal law.
Additionally, Alice Alpha's actions resulted in the unintended consequence of killing Gerry Gamma, which could also result in charges of involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide, depending on the specific jurisdiction's laws and the circumstances of the incident.
Read more about grievance
brainly.com/question/28890684
#SPJ1
TRUE OR FALSE The San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank is the only one in the West because San Francisco outbid Sacramento to be its host.
Suppose that a landlord, L, has a tenant, T, that leases to T1 and included a right of re-entry. What rights does L have over T1 under the privity of estate?
Under the privity of estate, if T1 breaches the terms of the lease agreement with T, L may have the right of re-entry, which would allow L to terminate the lease agreement and regain possession of the property.
A lease agreement is a legal contract between a landlord (lessor) and a tenant (lessee) that sets out the terms and conditions of renting a property. It outlines the responsibilities of both the landlord and the tenant during the lease term.
The right of re-entry is a contractual provision that allows the landlord to terminate the lease and regain possession of the property if the tenant or sub-tenant violates a specific term or condition of the lease agreement.
Learn more about lease agreement here:
https://brainly.com/question/30193309
#SPJ4
Why does the Party try to isolate citizens from each other?
A. To prevent romantic relationships from occurring
B. To prevent citizens from discussing the Party's policies and rising up against the government
C. To prevent an outbreak of a deadly pandemic
D. To maintain class separation
Answer:
B to prevent citizen from discussing the party policies and rising up against the government
The Party in George Orwell's novel 1984 tries to isolate citizens from each other mainly to prevent them from discussing the Party's policies and rising up against the government. The correct option is B
This is because the Party's ultimate goal is to maintain absolute control over the population and any form of dissent or rebellion is seen as a threat to its power.
Additionally, the Party discourages romantic relationships as they may distract citizens from their loyalty to the Party and potentially create a sense of loyalty towards their partner instead.
Maintaining class separation is also a tactic used by the Party to prevent unity among citizens and maintain the hierarchical structure of society.
The prevention of a deadly pandemic is not a primary reason for the Party's isolation tactics in the novel.
To know more about George Orwell's refer here:
https://brainly.com/question/12380617#
#SPJ11
The decline in union membership can be attributed to:a. many workers have become disenfranchised with their unions.b. corrupt union leadership.c. union members' perception that cost of membership outweighs the benefits.d. All of these are correct.
Option (d), The disenchantment of many employees with their unions, corrupt union leadership, and the belief among union members that the costs of participation exceed the benefits all contribute to the drop in union membership.
What are the reasons behind the demise of the unions?At its peak in the 1950s, around one-third of private sector employment was unionized; now, that number is barely over 6%. Technical development, company concentration, and globalization are frequently cited as the main causes of weakening union authority and an improvement in employers' bargaining position relative to workers.
How does a union go about representing the interests of each of its members?Collective bargaining is a process wherein employees and employers negotiate contracts to specify terms of employment such as compensation, benefits, working conditions, hours, leave, workplace health and safety standards, ways to balance work and family duties, and more.
What three elements might be the cause of the decline in union membership?Technical development, company concentration, and globalization are frequently cited as the main causes of weakening union authority and an improvement in employers' bargaining position relative to workers.
Learn more about union membership: https://brainly.com/question/2484380
#SPJ1
The complete question is:
The decline in union membership can be attributed to:
a. many workers have become disenfranchised with their unions.
b. corrupt union leadership.
c. union members' perception that cost of membership outweighs the benefits.
d. All of these are correct.
3. When did Black Women recieve the right to vote in federal elections?
Black women received the right to vote in federal elections in 1965 with the passage of the Voting Rights Act. This critical law outlawed racial bias in electoral procedures.
The correct answer is 1965.
Before the Voting Rights Act, many states had implemented discriminatory practices such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and other requirements that disproportionately affected Black voters. These practices were used to deny Black women and men the right to vote and other forms of disenfranchisement, such as violent intimidation and threats.
The Voting Rights Act was a critical triumph for the civil rights movement. It paved the way for more excellent political representation and participation by Black women and other marginalized groups.
To know more about right to vote, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/29759734
#SPJ4
element 2 of rule of law: equality before the law
Equality before the law is the second element of the rule of law, which is a fundamental principle of democratic societies. It means that every person, regardless of their status, wealth, race, gender, or any other personal characteristic, is equal in the eyes of the law.
In other words, the law applies equally to all individuals and no one is above the law. This principle ensures that everyone is entitled to the same legal protections and freedoms and that no one is discriminated against or mistreated by the legal system.
Equality before the law is essential for maintaining the integrity and legitimacy of the legal system. It helps to build public trust in the legal system and ensures that justice is administered fairly and impartially. When the law is applied equally, people can have confidence that their rights will be protected and that justice will be served.
To learn more about Equality before the law, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/14790588
#SPJ4
The ____ enforces the Wagner, Taft-Hartley and Landrum Griffin Acts.U.S. Department of LaborFederal Labor-Management Conciliation AuthorityNational Labor Relations Board
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) enforces the Wagner, Taft-Hartley, and Landrum-Griffin Acts because these laws protect workers' rights and regulate the activities of unions and employers in the United States.
The correct answer is National Labor Relations Board.
The NLRB comprises five members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The term of each member is five years, and no more than three members may be from the same political party. The NLRB has several responsibilities under the NLRA, including conducting elections to determine whether workers wish to be represented by a union and certifying the results of those elections.
The NLRB also investigates and remedies unfair labour practices by employers and unions, such as interfering with or discriminating against employees seeking to organize a union, engaging in unlawful strikes or picketing, or failing to bargain in good faith with a union.
To learn more about National Labor Relations Board, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/7202765
#SPJ4
what is Amendments Before Trial, Time to Respond
Amendments before trial refer to changes that a party to a lawsuit wants to make to their pleading before the trial commences. These amendments may include adding, deleting, or modifying claims or defenses, or correcting errors or omissions in the original pleading.
The time to respond to an amendment before trial depends on the specific rules of the court where the case is being heard. Generally, the opposing party must be given notice of the proposed amendment and an opportunity to respond, either by filing a responsive pleading or by objecting to the amendment. The court may also set a deadline for the parties to file any amendments or objections, and may hold a hearing to consider the proposed amendments and any objections raised by the opposing party.
Learn more about Amendments
https://brainly.com/question/13276616
#SPJ4
TRUE/FALSE. The mediator in a mediation has the power to force the parties to come to a settlement
FALSE, The mediator in a mediation does not have the power to force the parties to come to a settlement. The role of the mediator is to facilitate communication and negotiation between the parties in an attempt to reach a mutually acceptable resolution.
The mediator can offer suggestions and propose solutions, but ultimately it is up to the parties to agree to the terms of the settlement.
Mediation is a voluntary process, and either party can choose to end the process at any time. However, the mediator can encourage the parties to continue negotiating and explore different options until they reach a settlement that meets their needs and interests.
To know more about mediator visit:
https://brainly.com/question/31131551
#SPJ11
a state attorney general may recover up to how much in damages (civil penalties) resulting from sherman act violations?
Assume Jerry is fired from his job after his boss lies about Jerry's job performance. Jerry would like to sue his employer and not his boss. Based upon these facts alone, Jerry should most likely bring a lawsuit against his former employer for
Based on the facts given, Jerry may be able to bring a lawsuit against his former employer for defamation. Defamation is a legal claim that arises when one person communicates a false and harmful statement about another person to a third party.
The correct answer is defamation.
In this case, Jerry's boss may have made false statements about his job performance to the employer, ultimately leading to Jerry's termination. However, whether Jerry can successfully bring a lawsuit against his former employer for defamation will depend on several factors, including the specific details of the false statements made about him, the extent to which they harmed his reputation, and the legal requirements for proving a defamation claim in the relevant jurisdiction.
It is also worth noting that in some cases, an employer may be held liable for the actions of its employees if those actions were taken within the scope of their employment. In other cases, an employee may be sued directly for their actions. Therefore, Jerry may want to consult with a qualified attorney to determine the most appropriate course of action and to assess the strength of his potential legal claim.
To learn more about defamation, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/31538290
#SPJ4
