What is the crave term in maranao​
a. okir
b. okkil
c. okir motif
d. oker

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.

Imagine a child who consistently gets mediocre grades and is often picked last for a team when games are played at recess. however, he likes to make silly jokes and play pranks, and he notices that people laugh when he does those things. the child starts to think that others are laughing with him, not at him. this is part of the process that charles cooley

Arthur met rottweiler breeders lynda and george at a dog show in rhode island. the couple, who reside in new york state, later sold several rottweiler dogs to arthur who lived in rhode island. arthur later sued lynda and george, claiming that the dogs were sick and infirm. he filed a complaint in rhode island courts, claiming that even though the dogs were sold in new york, the breeders had attended the dog show and advertised in the rottweiler newsletter which was distributed at the event in rhode island. based on the facts, do you think rhode island courts have personal jurisdiction in this case?