Answer: Social engineering
Explanation:
Social engineering is simply the use of deceit in order to manipulate individuals so that they can give out personal and confidential information about themselves which will be used for fraud.
The activities involved in social engineering are phishing, scams and hoaxes aimed at getting individuals to compromise sensitive data.
Answer:
No.
Explanation:
The market should determine the price of goods and services only. The commercialization of human organs would increase the existing social inequality. This is because poor people would only be able to sell their organs, meaning they would not have the ability to buy a kidney if they needed it. On the other hand, it would increase the sale of kidneys for material survival itself, which is morally reprehensible.
Answer and Explanation:
1> Let's solve the standard economic model first based on rational expectation.
Since the medium willingness to pay is $5, we can assume half the people have more willingness to pay than $5 and half the people have less. (Since it's a large class, we can assume this)
So, half of them who got the mug will sell, according to standard theory.
2> Now behavioral economist will disagree. People who got the mug, get an emotional and nostalgic attachment with it, thus they would not like to sell it because they get utility after having something, so by behavioral theory, less than half of pupils who got the mug will sell.
Answer:
Forgery refers to the crime pertaining to, alternation of legal obligation or rights in writing of another person. It is the production of the spurious work which is being considered to be genuine such as a painting, and coin. It is the action underlying imitation or forging a copy of the document, banknote, work of art and signature.
In the case, Debbie Brooks is solely responsible for the loss caused to her by the forged transaction. The fraud took place due to the recklessness of Debbie Brooks as she allowed Martha Tingstrom to handle her financial resources and accounts which in itself is a mistake. She failed to notice the transaction details promptly issued to her periodically by her bank and provided the details of such transaction to the bank within a period of 30 days. The bank is not liable as it has perform its obligation to the fullest. Therefore, it is ascertained that Debbie Brooks is solely responsible for the loss caused to her by the forged transaction made by Martha Tingstrom.
Explanation:
The answer to this question is that the contract is voidable. A voidable contract specificallt means that the contract can still be implemented or affirmed or rejected by one of the parties due to valid reasons. A situation where in a contract can be voidable is when the other party is not in the capacity to enter into a contract.
