Answer:
Yes, Dealer could collect damages from GM because basically GM breached the contract. Any time a contract is breached, the non-breaching party can sue. But the real question here is what amount could the court assign to Dealer as compensation for damages incurred. If you want to rephrase this question, it would be: What damages did Dealer suffer due to GM's breach.
If the damages are not significant, then the court will probably assign some amount for nominal damages. To be honest, the greatest expenses here are actually the legal costs of the lawsuit. Unless Dealer can prove that assigning the contract actually hurt them (which I doubt), then the court will assign a small amount. Sometimes nominal damages can be very small and mostly symbolic, e.g. $1.
The answer is true.
In business, you have to prioritize what is the most important task to
do for the day as this might affect your business. You have to choose which is the most to the
least important things to do. The most
important things come first especially if it has a big impact on your career.
<span>A non renewable resorce is a </span>resource<span> of economic value that cannot be readily replaced by natural means on a level equal to its consumption. Most fossil fuels, such as oil, natural gas and coal are considered </span>nonrenewable resources<span> in that their use is not sustainable because their formation takes billions of years.so this would be ur answer to the non renewable resource
</span>
Answer:
A. The money multiplier is the amount of money supply with each dollar increase in reserves. so, it is correct.
b.- Since there is an inverse relationship between the reserve ratio and the money multiplier, a higher reserve ratio leads to a lower money multiplier. So increase the ratio and lower the money.
Answer:
<em>2.statute.</em>
Explanation:
<em>The court ruling will be decided by the contractual agreement signed by the three parties. A Limited Liability Agreement will usually be demonstrated by three parties signing a contract together. </em>
The situation will become difficult once, within each partner, there is no written statement about the distribution of profit. Every partner must obtain the suitable yield rate, based on their original investment.
The verdict begins to appear as if it falls into the hands of the state. By considering the Revised Uniform Partnership Act-Section 306. It relies heavily on where the business is registered, authorized, type of business.
However, John is the majority shareholder with 60 per cent of financial and legal accountability[ which is why he owes more to investment return]. It is also partly due to unlawful double tax laws and they are intended to protect the owner / partner of the business.
The confusion could've been avoided if an attorney and bookkeeper were available to describe the process, before the agreement was made and/or written. The condition they submit for incorporation makes a huge difference however, it does not seem to be the circumstance.
