Jill, a first year law student, while walking to school in inclement weather, accidentally slipped on ice knocking down Jack, another first year law student, breaking his glasses. He was very angry with Jill and let the air out of one of her car tires. Jack also decided to sue Jill for negligence, claiming as damages $300 for his broken glasses. He decided that he already knew all about the law and did not need a lawyer. Jack sued Jill in state court. Jill, in the same lawsuit, brought an action against Jack for letting the air out of her tire. At trial in state court, Jill told the judge that a friend, Jane, told her that she saw Jack let the air out of Jill's tire. The judge disallowed Jill's testimony on that issue. Jane, however, who was in the courtroom also came and testified to that effect. The state court judge ruled in favor of Jill. Jack said that he was not giving up and that he would seek double damages on appeal in federal court. Jill and Jack live in different states when not attending school. After trial, Jill reported Jack's actions in letting the air out of her tire to the police who said that they would proceed with a criminal action against Jack. Jack goes to see John, a recent graduate who had just passed the bar, and asked John to represent him in a federal court appeal. What advice should John give to Jack regarding an appeal filed in federal court? O He should tell Jack that a federal appeal looks promising and that he will be glad to represent Jack for an hourly rate of $400. O He should tell Jack that the federal appeal looks good only if Jack can get Jill to admit she was negligent. O He should tell Jack to forget about a federal court appeal because an appeal from a state trial court would not be transferred to federal court, O He should tell Jack that the federal appeal is not possible unless Jack first gets the trial court judge to certify the case to federal court.Ralph Nader, a member of the school board in San Joaquin County, is appalled at the amount of junk food in the schools. He convinces the state legislature to pass an ordinance that no stores may sell any unhealthy, junk food within 500 feet of any school, including colleges or day care centers. A professor of business law raises the issue of whether the regulation is valid and is told that it is a valid exercise of the jurisdiction's police power to protect its citizens. Convenience stores balk at the regulation and challenge it in court. In determining whether the law is constitutional, which of the following will a court likely ask? O Whether the state regulation is rationally related to a legitimate state end. O Whether the state regulation is needed for a compelling reason and also whether the state regulation will impact tax revenue. O Whether the state regulation is needed for a compelling reason. O Whether the state regulation is needed for an important reason.Ralph Nader, a member of the school board in San Joaquin County, is appalled at the amount of junk food in the schools. He convinces the state legislature to pass an ordinance that no stores may sell any unhealthy, junk food within 500 feet of any school, including colleges or day care centers. A professor of business law raises the issue of whether the regulation is valid and is told that it is a valid exercise of the jurisdiction's police power to protect its citizens. Convenience stores balk at the regulation and challenge it in court. What do courts generally presume regarding laws passed in accordance with states' police power? O That the law is invalid. O That the law is valid unless it involves the commerce clause. O There is no presumption. O That the law is valid.A dispute over an unliquidated debt may be settled for less than the full amount if the parties enter into an accord and satisfaction. O True O False