Article IV of the Constitution which includes the Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that

An artist entered into a written agreement to sell a patron a partially finished painting once it was complete. the patron later learned that the artist planned to sell the painting to a third party who offered to pay the artist more than the contract price. the patron filed suit to compel the artist to sell the painting to her in accord with the terms of their agreement, while the artist denied that the painting the artist planned to sell to the third party was the subject of the agreement with the patron. at trial, the patron did not introduce the written agreement or explain its absence. rather, the patron sought to testify that, when she signed the agreement, the artist had pointed to the painting in question and stated that it was the patron’s painting. the artist’s attorney objected to the testimony that the artist identified the painting as belonging to the patron. how should the court rule? asustain the objection, because the artist’s statement was hearsay. bsustain the objection, because the patron failed to produce the written agreement or explain its absence. coverrule the objection, because the statement is not hearsay. doverrule the objection, because the statement was relevant.

Explain the events that led to the iranian revolution and the following iranian hostage crisis. how was the united states involved with iran? describe the arab-israeli conflicts of the 20th century. be sure to include specific military interventions, peace agreements, and the ultimate reason for conflict.

Research and review one of the following cases: 1. eeoc vs abercrombie and fitch inc. 2. young vs ups 3. vance vs ball state university after you have thought through and understand the case answer the following: 1. explain the facts of the case leading to the dispute. 2. define and show understanding of each of the terms assigned to your case. break the laws into components where necessary. eeoc vs abercrombie and fitch inc: 1) eeoc, 2) title vii, 3) disparate treatment discrimination, 4)disparate impact discrimination vance vs ball state university: 1) eeoc, 2) title vii, 3) hostile work environment, 4) a supervisor for title vii purposes young vs ups: 1) title vii, 2) pregnancy discrimination act, 3)american's with disabilities act, 4) reasonable accommodation 3.how do the above concepts come into play in the case? 4. what rule of law came from the case? what did the court decide? 5. based on your understanding of employment law was the ruling correct? explain using a legal principle.