The lawyer advised her client not to ___ to the allegations.

The contract was declared ___ because it lacked mutual consent.

If the tenant ___ the lease agreement, they may be evicted.

Witnesses ___ under oath before giving their testimony.

The judge ruled in favor of the defendant ___ insufficient evidence.

A divorce petition must be ___ with the family court.

The accused was found guilty and sentenced ___ five years in prison.

The parties agreed to resolve the dispute through ___.

The judge ordered the witness to answer the question ___.

A lawyer must always act in the best ___ of their client.

He was charged with ___ property belonging to the company.

The defendant’s rights must be respected ___ the trial.

The lawyer submitted new evidence ___ support of the appeal.

The agreement will remain in force ___ both parties agree to terminate it.

In a recent civil dispute, Mr. Patel, a former supplier, initiated legal action against Langford Enterprises, alleging a breach of a supply agreement. The contract, signed in April 2021, stipulated that Langford would purchase a minimum of 10,000 units per quarter. However, starting in Q3 2022, orders declined significantly, dropping below 3,000 units. Mr. Patel claims this constitutes a material breach, resulting in substantial financial loss. Langford Enterprises contends that the drop in volume was due to market conditions and that the agreement included a force majeure clause exempting them from liability in such cases. The matter is now before the High Court, where preliminary hearings have begun. Both parties are preparing expert testimony to support their interpretation of the contract’s enforceability.

In a recent civil dispute, Mr. Patel, a former supplier, initiated legal action against Langford Enterprises, alleging a breach of a supply agreement. The contract, signed in April 2021, stipulated that Langford would purchase a minimum of 10,000 units per quarter. However, starting in Q3 2022, orders declined significantly, dropping below 3,000 units. Mr. Patel claims this constitutes a material breach, resulting in substantial financial loss. Langford Enterprises contends that the drop in volume was due to market conditions and that the agreement included a force majeure clause exempting them from liability in such cases. The matter is now before the High Court, where preliminary hearings have begun. Both parties are preparing expert testimony to support their interpretation of the contract’s enforceability.

In a recent civil dispute, Mr. Patel, a former supplier, initiated legal action against Langford Enterprises, alleging a breach of a supply agreement. The contract, signed in April 2021, stipulated that Langford would purchase a minimum of 10,000 units per quarter. However, starting in Q3 2022, orders declined significantly, dropping below 3,000 units. Mr. Patel claims this constitutes a material breach, resulting in substantial financial loss. Langford Enterprises contends that the drop in volume was due to market conditions and that the agreement included a force majeure clause exempting them from liability in such cases. The matter is now before the High Court, where preliminary hearings have begun. Both parties are preparing expert testimony to support their interpretation of the contract’s enforceability.

Listen to the audio, and answer the question

Listen to the audio, and answer the question

Listen to the audio, and answer the question