How did the Aztecs overcome the fact that much of Mexico was not good for farming?

Sara and her friends were at an iowa football game in iowa city. sara is a life long resident of iowa and goes to college at dmacc. while she was in iowa city, robert smashed into her car when he ran a red light. sara was seriously injured and taken to university hospitals in iowa city (fortunately her injuries were not life threatening but laid her up for a long time and she had to drop out of college for the rest of the semester). robert is from michigan and was in iowa city to see the game and then to party later. at the time of the accident robert was drunk (at least legally - he blew a 0.17 and the limit is 0.08). sara has sustained about $500,000 in damages between her current and future medical bills, pain/suffering, lost wages, etc. also her car was totaled in the accident. can sara sue robert in a federal court? explain why or why not. (be sure to mention the two primary factors associated with suing someone in a federal court in a case like this.)

Ahusband who believed that his wife was having an affair with his brother hired an arsonist to burn down the brother's house. they planned for the husband to take his brother to a ballgame so that the arsonist would be able to set the house on fire without detection. after the husband and brother left for the ballgame, however, the arsonist decided to abandon the plan and immediately left town without doing anything further. when the husband returned from the ballgame with the brother, he saw the house still standing and blurted out what was supposed to have happened. the husband and the arsonist were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit arson. at the arsonist's trial, his attorney argued that he was innocent of the conspiracy because he decided not to go ahead with the plan, and nothing criminal had in fact occurred.at common law, how should a jury find the arsonist? a not guilty of conspiracy, because going to a ballgame is not a criminal overt act.b not guilty of conspiracy, because the husband, not the arsonist, committed the overt act.c guilty, because the husband executed his part of the plan.d guilty, because the arsonist agreed to set the brother's house on fire.

How are the three economic questions answered in a traditional economic system