Câu 1 (4 điểm): Các nhận định sau đúng hay sai? Giải thích ngắn gọn vì sao? Nêu cơ sở pháp lý? 1. Người từ đủ 15 tuổi trở lên có thể là đại diện theo uỷ quyền?
2. Mọi tổ chức đều là pháp nhân?
3. Khi một chủ thể của sở hữu chung theo phần từ bỏ quyền sở hữu của mình thì các chủ thể còn lại được quyền chi đều phần quyền sở hữu của người đó?
4. Người bị Tòa án tuyên bố là đã chết mà còn sống trở về thì có quyền yêu cầu những người thừa kế trả lại tài sản đã nhận?
5. Việc ủy quyền đại diện phải được lập bằng văn bản có chữ ký của bên ủy quyền và bên được ủy quyền?
6. Thời hiệu khởi kiện vụ án dân sự được tính từ thời điểm người bị hại phát hiện ra quyền và lợi ích của mình bị xâm phạm?
7. Giao dịch dân sự do người không có quyền đại diện xác lập thực hiện thì không làm phát sinh hậu quả pháp lý đối với người được đại diện?
8. Người thành niên thì có năng lực hành vi dân sự đầy đủ?

What is the difference between university and college?

September 10, 2016: you’ve been assigned to investigate a hit-and-run incident. when you arrive at the scene, it’s raining and foggy. the roads are slick. it looks like the crash occurred during the early evening, about 5: 30 pm, a couple hours before dark. you notice a green 2010 chevrolet camaro lying off the road on an embankment and a blue 2014 toyota camry several yards back. both vehicles are damaged. robert b., the driver of the camaro, had severe back injuries and was taken to the hospital. the only witness is the toyota driver, fred h. fred h. was driving in the right lane when the accident occurred. according to fred, a red ford pickup truck (year and model unknown) suddenly swerved across the highway from the left lane. the pickup truck hit the front left side of the camaro in one of the center lanes, pushing it off the road before speeding away. the camaro lost control and sideswiped the toyota as it skidded across the highway, denting the toyota’s left side panels. the camaro then skidded across the grass to the right of the highway and crashed into a low concrete wall. the hood and both sides of the camaro have extensive damage. the toyota driver pulled up behind the camaro and called the police. the accident occurred near miami, florida, on i-95 northbound, a 5-lane highway. it happened just before the exit 16 offramp. fred h. and robert b. both passed breathalyzer tests. neither had any passengers in the car. as you search the scene, you notice: tire tracks/skid marks left on the pavement deep red scrapes across the camaro’s panels and green scrapes across the toyota’s panels broken car window fragments of a hood or panel a torn rag an empty beer can deep tire marks and footprints in the mud of the embankment at the scene use the information above to answer the following questions. for each of a – e above, give an example of a type of evidence you could collect from that item and how you would collect it. (one to two sentences each) fill out a crash form for the incident. use the form florida crash report and use the information in the description above to create a brief three- to five-sentence summary for the “narrative” section. use the witness’s description to draw a diagram of the incident. if you can’t find a piece of information for the form, just leave that part blank. impression evidence three separate tire marks were collected from the scene. the marks were found in a pattern that supports fred’s version of events. three tire tread marks, a, b, and c. tire a appears to be worn flat in the middle from overinflation, tire b is narrow and appears worn on the outside edges, tire c looks normal and is not worn at all tires leave different types of marks based on their wear patterns. for example, tires that are constantly flat will leave different impressions than tires that are normally inflated or overinflated. the tires tend to wear out on the parts that are most exposed to the road. you checked out the tires of the two vehicles at the scene. here’s what you found: two tires side by side. a camaro tire which appears to be in good shape, and a toyota tire which appears worn on the outside edges the camaro had normal tires, but the toyota’s tires were a little flat and overly worn on the outside edges. the condition of the red ford truck’s tires is unknown. match the three impressions with the cars that most likely created them. what can you hypothesize about the red pickup’s tires? could this have anything to do with the accident? explain your answer. (two to four sentences) a red pickup fitting fred’s description was later seen running a stoplight. police pulled it over for a check. its tire impressions looked like this: a single tire tread mark which appears worn on the outside edges based on the evidence, do you think this was the same red pickup that rammed the camaro? why or why not? (one to two sentences)

Vehicle #1 skidded 50 ft before impact with a drag factor of 0.80, how far from impact was vehicle #1 when vehicle #2 first began to accelerate from being stopped?