Zwane died intestate on 26 November 2021 and is survived by his wife Dudu to whom he was married according to Customary Law in 2011. They did not enter into an antenuptial contract and were married in community of property. At the time of Zwane’s death, Dudu was seven months pregnant with Zwane’s child, who they planned to call Bongani. Zwane is also survived by the following relatives:
(i) His son Joshua who renounced his rights to inherit;
(ii) His father Solly;
(iii) His younger sister Rose.
The joint estate is worth R900 000.00 (Nine Hundred Thousand Rand). How will Zwane’s estate devolve?
Answers
The way and manner that Zwane's estate would devolve under the Community of Property are that Dudu has the right to dispose of the joint estate as she wished.
What is the community of property work in South Africa?in South Africa, when a couple is married in a community of property and did not enter into an antenuptial or prenuptial agreement to exclude the community of property clause regarding their joint estate, each spouse can dispose of the assets as they wished.
By the time that Zwane died intestate, and applying the Community of Property clause, Dudu has the exclusive right to the devolution of the estate.
Thus, the manner that Zwane's estate would devolve under the Community of Property is that Dudu has the right to dispose of the joint estate as she wished.
Learn more about the community of property in South Africa at https://brainly.com/question/3669648
Related Questions
sumulatng isang sariling karunungang bayan (,salawikain,sawikain o kasabihan)na angkop sa kasalukuyang kalagayan at ilagay ito sa isang bookmark
Answers
"Nasa Diyos ang awa, nasa tao ang gawa." - A reminder to take action and responsibility in the current situation.
"Nasa Diyos ang awa, nasa tao ang gawa."
Explanation: This proverb emphasizes the importance of taking action and responsibility in the current situation. It implies that while we can seek God's mercy and guidance, it is ultimately up to us to make a difference and bring about positive change.
This saying is relevant in reminding individuals to actively participate and contribute to improving the present circumstances. The bookmark can serve as a daily reminder to be proactive and accountable in facing challenges and making a difference in one's own life and the community.
Learn more about reminder
brainly.com/question/33438822
#SPJ11
what do you think about the differences between the common law and
the UCC rules on offers and acceptances? Can you think of an
example where you might have madr offer forming a contract?
Answers
In a contract under common law, all of the following must be included: the offer, the type of the work, the price, the quantity, and the performance. In a contract under the UCC, just the quantity must be specified.
In general, the UCC offers what the common law does: if the parties have a written document that is meant to be their final agreement, it "may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement." The "course of dealing or usage of trade" may, however, provide an explanation. When someone visits a grocery store to buy their groceries, they enter into an agreement with the store to pay money in exchange for food and drink.
Read more about common law at
https://brainly.com/question/31657506
#SPJ4
Which of the following is an example of the difference between law and ethics?
A. The law tells us how we should act, while ethics tells us which actions will lead to consequences.
B. The law tends to be universal, whereas ethics tend to be dependent on the situation.
C. The law is simple and easy to understand, whereas ethics are comples and require much more study.
D. The law is official and enforced by the government, while ethics are unofficial but still generally accept by society.
Answers
below provides details about the U.S. court system
U.S District courts > U.S Courts Of Appeals > U.S ?
Which court completes the diagram?
A. Circuit Court
B. Supreme Court
C. Municipal Court
D. Court of Veterans Appeals
Explain your reasoning for choosing this answer:
Answers
Answer:
B is your answer
Explanation:
critics of the grand jury system argue that reform is needed for which reason?
Answers
Answer:
Grand juries often only hear evidence presented by the prosecutor when determining whether this is probable cause to issue and indictment
Explanation:
Critics of the grand jury system argue that reform is needed because:
Unauthorized disclosures of grand jury procedures have jeopardized the grand jury's mission, resulting in 343 witnesses' names being leaked before any indictments were issued, including 5 witnesses who were murdered, 10 witnesses who were intimidated, and 1 witness who disappeared.
Hence an alleged misuse of authority.
A grand jury is a group of individuals who are empowered by law to conduct legal processes, investigate possible criminal behavior, and decide whether criminal charges should be issued. A grand jury may call tangible evidence or a witness to testify. A grand jury is distinct from the courts and is not presided over by them.
Grand juries, which originated in England during the Middle Ages, are now only used in two countries: the United States and Liberia.
Other common law jurisdictions used to use them, but the majority of them now use an alternative method that does not include a jury: a preliminary hearing. Grand juries have both accusatory and investigative powers.
As indicated above, despite the relevance of the Grand Jury System, certain misuse of power called the attention of policymakers and stakeholders to the need to reform the system.
Learn more about Grand Jury:
https://brainly.com/question/14057837
#SPJ1
This is the element that requires that no laws or statutes be violated, for example, if a construction contractor is not licensed in Oregon then they would be in violation of a State statute?
Select one:
a. agreement
b. capacity
c. legality
d. consideration
Answers
There are endless consequences of being an "inmate," "prisoner," "convict," etc. Pick what you consider to be the 3 biggest problems for these individuals when they leave incarceration and return to their communities.
Answers
2. Finishing College/School
3. Finding a Partner
Which diagram correctly arranges systems of government in order from least powerful to most powerful?
A. Constitutional, Authoritarian, Anarchy
B. Authoritarian, Anarchy, Constitutional
C. Totalitarian, Constitutional, Authoritarian
D. Anarchy, Authoritarian, Totalitarian
Answers
Anarchy, Authoritarian, and totalitarianism correctly arrange systems of government in order from least powerful to most powerful. Thus option D is correct.
What is government?The group of people who make up a municipal unit's or an institution's regulatory agency. An organized population is governed by a system or group of individuals, typically a state. The government often consists of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches in the situation of its broad integrative definition.
Anarchy is a condition of disarray brought on by a lack of respect for or disregard for authority or other governing mechanisms.
Authoritarianism is supporting or imposing slavish submission to authority, particularly that of the government, somewhere at expense of human freedom.
Totalitarianism is a kind of government that demands total submission to authority and is autocratic and centralized.
Therefore, option D is the correct option.
Learn more about the government, Here:
brainly.com/question/16940043
#SPJ5
Which of the following is NOT seen in the Preamble?
create a unified nation
create just and fair laws
protect the country
maintain peace among the citizens
grant life, liberty, and property
Answers
There is no mention of life, liberty, or property in the Preamble. Therefore, option E is correct.
The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States is a succinct introduction declaration of the essential aims and guiding principles of the US Constitution that starts with the words "We the People."
It has been acknowledged by courts as trustworthy proof of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the meaning of the Constitution and their goals for it.
The preamble to the Constitution was written with the intent of establishing the Constitution's enactment, separating it from the Articles of Confederation, and summarizing its main points.
A Pennsylvania delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which convened at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, the preamble was mostly drafted by founding father Gouverneur Morris.
Learn more about the preamble here:
https://brainly.com/question/30287427
#SPJ2
What is the supreme law of the united states?
Answers
Answer:
The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States. Learn more about our founding document.
What is constitution?A country or state's government is governed by a set of fundamental laws known as its constitution. The term "codified" merely refers to the fact that almost all constitutions are explicitly spelled out in a document known as "the constitution." However, several nations, including Israel, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, have "un-codified" constitutions that aren't properly recorded in a single location. Typically, constitutions contain the following fundamental components:A prologue is a passionate introduction that outlines the constitution's goal.A thorough explanation of the power split that should occur between the national and state levels of government, as well as the three branches of government (legislature, executive, and judiciary).a promise of certain fundamental rights that people can exercise.hence,The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States. Learn more about our founding document.
learn more about constitution click here:
https://brainly.com/question/453546
#SPJ4
The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Every law, executive order, and Supreme Court decision has to be consistent and in line with the Constitution. However, even though the Constitution is easily accessible to the public, there is much confusion and misconception about what the Constitution says. Why is it important to understand what the Constitution actually says? How can we increase public awareness of what the Constitution actually states?
Answers
It is important to understand what the Constitution actually says because it serves as the foundation of the United States government and outlines the rights and freedoms of its citizens.
By knowing and comprehending its content, individuals can actively participate in the democratic process, hold elected officials accountable, and make informed decisions about legal and political matters. Understanding the Constitution also promotes respect for the rule of law and helps prevent the erosion of constitutional rights through misinformation or misinterpretation.
To increase public awareness of what the Constitution actually states, education and civic engagement are key. Schools should prioritize teaching the Constitution as part of their curriculum, ensuring students develop a fundamental understanding of its principles.
Public campaigns, media outlets, and social platforms can also play a crucial role in promoting constitutional literacy by providing accurate information and promoting discussions on constitutional issues. Organizations and institutions can organize seminars, workshops, and community events to engage citizens in meaningful dialogue about the Constitution, its significance, and its implications for their everyday lives.
Learn more about Constitution here:
https://brainly.com/question/14453917
#SPJ4
Is there sex trafficking in Iowa
Answers
Answer:
30, 2020. From 2013 to 2017, the number of human trafficking reports in Iowa increased steadily, according to a report from the Iowa Office to Combat Human Trafficking. Reports decreased in 2018, increased in 2019, then fell off again in 2020.
Hope its helpful!
Answer:
30, 2020. From 2013 to 2017, the number of human trafficking reports in Iowa increased steadily, according to a report from the Iowa Office to Combat Human Trafficking. Reports decreased in 2018, increased in 2019, then fell off again in 2020.
Hope its helpful!
This is a 1789 law permitting foreign citizens to litigate alleged violations of international law in U.S. federal district courts. A. The Alien Tort Claims Act
B. The Sherman Antitrust Act
C. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act
D. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Answers
1789 law permitting foreign citizens to litigate alleged violations of international law in U.S. federal district courts is the Alien Tort Claims Act. Therefore the correct option is option is A.
It passed in the year 1789, enables the foreign nationals to file lawsuits against American federal district courts for alleged transgressions of international law.
The statute was first passed in 1789 as a provision of the Judiciary Act, and it was created to deal with disputes which involves the ambassadors or the diplomats from other countries.
Human rights advocates have recently used the ATCA to hold businesses, public servants, and others accountable for violations of the international human rights.
Therefore the correct option is option is A.
For such more question on law
https://brainly.com/question/25368237
#SPJ11
Using your z-score table, find P(z < 1.89)
Answers
in 2015, the supreme court's ruling in obergefell v. hodges made _____ a civil right nationwide.
Answers
In 2015, the supreme court's ruling in obergefell v. hodges made Marriage Equality a civil right nationwide.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges made same-sex marriage a civil righ nationwide. This ruling effectively overturned all state laws that prohibite same-sex marriage and granted same-sex couples the right to legally marry everywhere in the United States. This ruling was an important step forward in the fight for LGBTQ rights, as it provided same-sex couples with the same legal rights and privileges of heterosexual couples.
It recognized same-sex couples as being equal to heterosexual couples and ensured that they are treated with the same dignity and respect as heterosexual couples. In addition to providing legal protections, the ruling provided same-sex couples with the right to celebrate their love with the same ceremony and recognition as heterosexual couples. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision was a historic victory for LGBTQ rights and a major step forward in the fight for marriage equality and equal rights for all.
To know more about Supreme Court, click here:
https://brainly.com/question/29759733
#SPJ4
Why are some forms of speech not protected by the First Amendment?
because they support different religious views
because they are expressed in writing
because they could cause harm to others
because they criticize the government
Answers
Personal property generally does not convey in the sale of real property; however, sometimes the parties to the transaction agree to include some items of personal property in the sale. In an instance like this, the agent?
Answers
Answer: should identify in the contract which personal property items are to be included in the sale
Explanation:
Personal property refers to the class of property which has to do with an asset that's not a real estate.
Based on the situation given, in an instance like this, the agent should identify in the contract which personal property items are to be included in the sale.
Kruttschnitt (1996) points out that ignoring racial variations in gender comparisons of offending is "short-sighted." Why? Do you agree with Kruttschnitt? Why or why not?
Answers
Kruttschnitt (1996) argues that failing to consider racial variations in gender comparisons of offending is short-sighted. This means that examining gender differences in crime without accounting for racial disparities overlooks important nuances and can lead to incomplete or inaccurate conclusions.
Whether or not one agrees with Kruttschnitt depends on the recognition of intersectionality and the understanding that gender and race intersect to shape experiences and outcomes related to crime and criminal justice.
Kruttschnitt's assertion emphasizes the importance of considering racial variations when analyzing gender differences in offending. By solely focusing on gender without accounting for race, one may miss critical insights into the complexities of criminal behavior and the experiences of different groups. Intersectionality recognizes that various social categories, such as gender, race, and class, intersect and interact to shape individuals' experiences. In the context of crime, the intersection of gender and race influences patterns of offending, victimization, and criminal justice responses. Factors such as social and economic inequalities, racial profiling, and systemic biases can disproportionately affect certain racial and ethnic groups, contributing to variations in crime rates and criminal justice outcomes.
Consequently, examining gender differences without considering racial disparities would provide an incomplete understanding of the complexities surrounding crime. Whether or not one agrees with Kruttschnitt depends on the recognition of intersectionality and the understanding that gender and race intersect to shape experiences and outcomes related to crime and criminal justice. By considering the intersectional nature of crime, researchers and policymakers can develop more comprehensive and effective strategies to address crime and reduce disparities in the criminal justice system.
Learn more about crimes here : brainly.com/question/14111944
#SPJ11
Question 2 Which is not one of the six arguments that can be employed in the defense against a criminal indictment? A) My client did it but is insane. B) My client did it for a good reason. C) My client did it D) My client did not do it.
Answers
One of the six arguments that can be employed in the defense against a criminal indictment My client did it but is insane.
Self-protection, entrapment, insanity, necessity, and respondent superior are a few examples of affirmative defenses. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56, any celebration may also make a movement for precis judgment on an affirmative protection from court.
Some not unusual place procedural defenses are entrapment via way of means of the government, fake confession via way of means of witnesses, falsified evidence, denial of a fast trial, double jeopardy, prosecutorial misconduct, and selective prosecution.
The human frame has 3 number one traces of protection to combat in opposition to overseas invaders, which include viruses, bacteria, and fungi. The immune system's 3 traces of protection include bodily and chemical barriers, non-unique innate responses, and unique adaptive responses.
Learn more about court here:
https://brainly.com/question/26318342
#SPJ9
suppose a judge sitting on a district court in texas is found to have been accepting monetary bribes from lawyers to rule in their favor on several cases. according to the texas constitution, what is the most likely action to be taken regarding this judge?
Answers
When a district court judge in Texas is discovered to have taken bribes from attorneys to decide in their favor on a number of cases, the Supreme Court of Texas will probably take steps to remove the judge from office.
The Judicial Conduct Commission has the authority to remove a judge from office for incompetence in the performance of the duties of the office, willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, or persistent violation of rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Texas.
In other words, judges are free to hold office for however long they see fit, and the only way to remove them from through impeachment.
A quorum must consist of seven persons. With the exception of recommendations for a judge's retirement, suspension, or removal, which must be granted by a vote of at least seven members, decisions must be made by most of those present.
To know more about Texas Supreme Court: https://brainly.com/question/14673579
#SPJ4
the use of legal precedent, or the use of prior decisions as guidance in disputes that occur later, is called: group of answer choices procedural law tort law remedy in equity stare decisis public law
Answers
The correct answer is C, The use of legal precedent, or the use of prior decisions as guidance in disputes that occur later, is called Stare decisis.
Stare decisis is a legal principle that refers to the practice of courts adhering to precedent and making decisions based on the rulings of previous cases. It is derived from Latin and translates to "to stand by things decided." Under stare decisis, courts are generally obligated to follow the legal principles established by higher courts within the same jurisdiction.
The principle serves as a foundation for the stability and predictability of the legal system, as it promotes consistency and uniformity in judicial decisions. When a legal issue has already been resolved by a higher court, lower courts are bound to apply the same reasoning and outcome to similar cases. Stare decisis ensures that similar cases are treated alike, preventing arbitrary or inconsistent rulings.
To know more about Stare decisis refer to-
brainly.com/question/24596729
#SPJ4
Complete Question:
The use of legal precedent, or the use of prior decisions as guidance in disputes that occur later, is called: a group of answer choices
A). Procedural law
B). Tort law remedy in equity
C). Stare decisis
D). Public law
A former President of a country in East Africa has been living in exile in Dubai. He flies to the US for a cancer operation and while here, is served with a summons for two lawsuits filed by U.S. residents who were former citizens of that East African country during the ex-President's tenure. The lawsuits allege universal jurisdiction over the ex-President. The first lawsuit's basis is that the defendant ordered the seizure of all farms owned by white or Asian people, regardless of the nationality of such people, thereby violating the UN Charter on Human Rights. The second lawsuit's basis is that forces under his direct command committed violent crimes and murders against a specified group of people, for political purposes. What defenses might the ex-President's counsel seek to use -- and what is their likelihood of success
Answers
The likelihood of success for these defenses would depend on various factors, including the specific laws of the jurisdiction in which the lawsuits are filed, the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, and the interpretation of international law.
The first lawsuit accuses the ex-President of ordering the seizure of farms owned by white or Asian individuals, violating the UN Charter on Human Rights. The second lawsuit alleges that forces under the ex-President's direct command committed violent crimes and murders against a specified group of people for political purposes.
The ex-President's counsel might seek the following defenses:
Sovereign Immunity: The ex-President's counsel may argue that the ex-President is immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts based on the principle of sovereign immunity. This defense asserts that as a former head of state, the ex-President should be immune from lawsuits in foreign jurisdictions.Lack of Jurisdiction: The ex-President's counsel may challenge the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts, arguing that the alleged acts did not occur within the territory of the United States and do not fall within the scope of universal jurisdiction. They may contend that the lawsuits should be pursued in the country where the alleged acts took place or before an international tribunal.Lack of Personal Involvement: The ex-President's counsel may argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the ex-President personally ordered the seizure of farms or committed violent crimes. They may assert that the ex-President was not directly involved in the actions mentioned in the lawsuits and therefore should not be held personally liable.Statute of Limitations: The ex-President's counsel may contend that the lawsuits were filed after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, preventing the plaintiffs from seeking legal redress for the alleged acts.know more about jurisdiction here:
https://brainly.com/question/30490316
#SPJ11
Under what circumstances, if any, should people be prohibited from voicing unpopular views? Explain your answer.
Answers
Answer:
In my opinion, people should not be prohibited from expressing their opinions under any circumstances, given the individual freedom of each individual to think independently, unless the ideas expressed were totally contrary to the common good (such as expressions that promote terrorism or defending regimes such as Nazism).
In other words, as long as the opinions of individuals do not promote violence or damage to society, they should be allowed, to guarantee the freedom of expression of citizens.
which of the following statements describes the attitudes of the federalists and the antifederalists toward representation as it would likely be observed under the proposed constitution?
Answers
The thinking of Anti-federalists to have a fair representation in small Republics, whereas, the federalists thought that representation is not at all important to be achieved, and this best describes their individual attitudes.
The representation of the public has been the biggest debate over the past few centuries in the formation of a fully-democratic American society. Where the Anti-federalists have utmost importance to their representation, the federalists were seen keeping mum on the topic of representation.
Learn more about representation here:
https://brainly.com/question/5822281
#SPJ4
Complete question
What best describes the attitudes of Federalists and Antifederalists toward representation as it would likely be observed under the proposed Constitution?
Which organization establishes and oversees the content of the EMT and paramedic courses?
Answers
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) establishes and oversees the content of the EMT and paramedic courses. Hence, the suitable option for this question will be option (a).
Give a brief account on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).The Department of Transportation in the United States is home to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Its stated objective in relation to American transportation safety is to "Save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes." As part of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) system, NHTSA is tasked with creating and implementing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as well as rules for motor vehicle theft resistance and fuel efficiency. On March 1st, 1967, FMVSS 209 became the first standard to go into effect.
The NHTSA also issues licenses to automakers and importers, permits or prohibits the importation of cars and car parts subject to safety regulations, manages the vehicle identification number (VIN) system, creates the anthropomorphic test subjects used in U.S. safety tests as well as the test procedures themselves, and provides information on auto insurance rates. The organization claims to have preemptive regulatory jurisdiction over greenhouse gas emissions, although state regulatory bodies like the California Air Resources Board have questioned this.
To know more about, NHTSA, visit :
https://brainly.com/question/11342968
#SPJ1
What does this sign mean?
DETOUR
O Watch for a traffic signal ahead
O Stop and ask for road information
o Watch for a temporary route ahead
Answers
40. Sarah has been asked to explain the "right-to-know" law to her coworkers in the forensics lab. How will she MOST accurately explain this
law?
All lab workers must know how to operate a handgun.
Scientists are informed of any potentially dangerous materials.
Forensic scientists are told when criminals are in the building.
No scientists have to testify in a criminal case if they choose not to.
Answers
Answer:
Pretty sure its B. Sorry if I'm wrong.
Explanation:
This is the definition on Wikipedia.
"Right to know", in the context of United States workplace and community environmental law, is the legal principle that the individual has the right to know the chemicals to which they may be exposed in their daily living.
Do you think it is possible to find a balance between justice and the implementation of Ubuntu and it’s inherent ideas rehabilitative justice
Answers
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
Ubuntu is the long tradition of african cultures where criminals or people that have done something wrong have to do right by the people they injured or hurt, and they have to help them healing the social tissue and restoring relationships in order to be able to go back into society.
It's a very close matter to rehabilitative justice, in the sense of wanting to restore the social tissue and helping the person get back to society as a good, productive and healthy member of the society, Ubuntu has proven to be a good method and state of mind when dealing with hurt societies by the narcotrafic and organized crime.
in what two ways did president jefferson expand presidential power?
Answers
President Thomas Jefferson expanded presidential power in two key ways during his tenure in office:
Expansion of executive power in foreign affairs: Jefferson significantly expanded the power of the presidency in foreign affairs, particularly through his use of executive agreements. He believed that the president had the authority to enter into agreements with foreign nations without seeking the approval of Congress, as long as those agreements did not conflict with existing laws or treaties. This approach allowed Jefferson to pursue his foreign policy goals, including the Louisiana Purchase and the embargo on trade with foreign nations, without needing to secure the approval of Congress.
Learn more about presidential
https://brainly.com/question/29633312
#SPJ4
3. How many misuses do semicolons have?
Answers
Answer:
Avoid a semicolon when a dependent clause comes before an independent clause. Incorrect: Although they tried; they failed. Correct: Although they tried, they failed.
Explanation:
an example if it helps