Aplaintiff read of the success of a box-office hit movie about aardvarks in various entertainment journals. the movie was enormously popular among young children, and cartoon figures from the movie began appearing on t-shirts, soft drink mugs, and other novelties. the plaintiff filed suit against the studio alleging that the production company unlawfully used his ideas for the movie. the studio admitted that it had received a clay model of a cartoon animal from the plaintiff, but denied that the model had any substantial similarity to the now-famous aardvarks. the studio had returned the model to the plaintiff, but he had destroyed it. for the plaintiff to testify at trial as to the appearance of the model, which of the following is true? a the plaintiff can testify as to the appearance of the model because he has personal knowledge of it. b the plaintiff must show that the destruction of the model was not committed in bad faith. c the plaintiff must introduce a photograph of the model, if one exists. d the plaintiff must give advance notice to the opposing party that he plans to use such oral testimony in his case.

answer: what do you mean

explanation:

answer; by working independently, the states have a high likelihood of developing innovative solutions that can be employed in other states;

hey,

i hope you are having a wonderful day

the correct answer is :

{b.}   ( american workers lose job opportunities )

hope this : )

    -sprinkles

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.