Search for: "Does, 1-10" Results 1 - 20 of 41,483
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 May 2024, 7:24 am by Cathy Moran
 So, bankruptcy does not lock you out of the world of credit. 2. [read post]
22 May 2024, 11:15 am by Unknown
"The Impact of Islamophobia on the Persecution of Myanmar's Rohingya: A Human Rights Perspective," Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, Latest Articles, 10 May 2024 [open access]"Prolonged contact does not reshape locals' attitudes toward migrants in wartime settings," American Journal of Political Science, Early View, 24 April 2024 [open access]- Focuses on Afghanistan. [read post]
22 May 2024, 4:03 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“Absent a confidential or fiduciary relationship, there is no duty to disclose, and meresilence, without identifying some act of deception, does not constitute a concealment actionable as fraud” (NYCTL 1999-1 Trust v 573 Jackson Ave. [read post]
22 May 2024, 4:00 am by Eric Segall
So does a long-used instruction to jurors to be skeptical of reports of rape. [read post]
21 May 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Key Takeaway Unlike the 2016 rules, the Final Rule does not contain a specific, representation-based exception from fiduciary advice for interactions with sophisticated counterparties like other advice fiduciaries. [read post]
21 May 2024, 5:55 am by itars sis
Nevertheless, the AI Office’s role does not imply to verify or proceed to “a work-by-work assessment of the training data in terms of copyright compliance. [read post]
20 May 2024, 10:30 pm by Jesse Peters
At the time, the internal review mechanism of Article 10 of the Regulation was considered the most promising creation, which allows non-governmental organisations and other natural and legal persons to request reconsideration of certain administrative acts or omissions by the adopting institution. [read post]
ASIC submitted the Notification Clause was unfair within the meaning of ss 12BF(1)(a) and 12BG(1) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (ASIC Act) on the basis that it: imposed an unclear disclosure obligation on the insured; suggested that Auto & General had a broader right to refuse or reduce claims than permitted under the ASIC Act; and was liable to mislead or confuse insureds as to their rights and obligations under the contract. [read post]