Furniture Now is a store that rents furniture to low-income individuals, and these individuals take title to the furniture after having paid the cost of the furniture (which is often overpriced with high interest rates). Hazel, an elderly low-income person, has rented and purchased a living room set, a dining room set, and a bedroom set from Furniture Now. Hazel rents an HD television from Furniture Now and signs a contract that states that if Hazel falls more than three months behind in her television payments, Furniture Now can recover all of the furniture she had previously purchased from the store as liquidated damages. Because the actual damages are clearly determinable in advance and the liquidated damages are excessive and unconscionable, this liquidated damages clause would be considered a .

In the compound republic of america, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. the different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.—madison, number 51 based on the quote, which of the following statements would madison have likely supported? development of political parties is necessary to ensure the security and stability of a democratic government. a government must have enough power to govern however, its power must also be limited by creating multiple branches within it. one government can not carry out the will of the people alone, therefore the establishment of two separate governments is necessary. a government must sometimes limit civil liberties of individuals to ensure the safety and security of all citizens.

Adefendant visited her doctor to seek treatment for a bullet wound. while he was treating the wound, the doctor asked the defendant how she was shot. the defendant replied that she was struck by a police officer’s bullet while running away from a jewelry store she had robbed, but she implored the doctor not to tell this to anyone. the doctor promised that he would not. although the defendant was never charged by the police, the owner of the jewelry store brought suit against her seeking the value of the stolen goods. the defendant denied robbing the store. at the trial, the owner calls the doctor to testify to the statement made to him by the defendant. the defense attorney objects on the ground that such testimony is barred by the jurisdiction’s physician-patient privilege. should the objection be sustained?

Me asap worth brainlieist and 50 points