<span>The question is incomplete, here is the complete question which I previously came across;</span>
When Janice went to work as a hair stylist in Rick's beauty shop, she entered into an agreement with Rick, whereby, if she left she would not work for another beauty shop within 50 miles for 2 years. Rick trained Janice in a number of new techniques. After nine months, Janice was offered a great job down the street at a new beauty shop, quit Rick, and had a number of customers follow her down the street to her new job. Rick claimed that she had signed a contract and had no right to go to work at the new shop. Janice disagreed and told Rick that no judge in the country would enforce such an agreement. Janice told Rick that she was more worried about a customer, Treena, who was threatening to sue her because her hair turned green after Janice worked on it. Janice agreed that Treena's hair was damaged. Janice pointed out, however, that she told Treena that odd results could result from a dye attempt, and she required that Treena sign a contract releasing Janice from all liabilities before she did anything with Treena's hair. Treena, however, sued anyway. The agreement Rick and Janice entered into is referred to as?
The answer is, the agreement Rick and Janice entered into is referred to as "<span>covenant not to compete".</span>
<span>
</span>
It is hard
to decide if a judge will implement a non-competition agreement. While the privileged insights of a business are important,
the law additionally puts value to a person's opportunity to seek after other
work. To be enforceable Courts more often than not require that a contract not
to compete be sensible. In California, non-competes are adequately unlawful
except if you are selling a business. Different states will implement a few provisions,
as a rule the trade secret protection, however not the work limitations.
Answer:
a. 2017 ⇒ 1.50
2016 ⇒1.58
b. Deteriorate
Explanation:
a. Current ratio 2017
= Current Assets / Current liabilities
= 6,708,700 / 4,470,000
= 1.50
Current ratio 2016
= 5,848,000 / 3,700,000
= 1.58
b. The current ratio went from 1.58 in 2016 to 1.50 in 2017 which would mean that it deteriorated.
739,000 - 219,000 = 520,000
The net assets are assets minus liabilities, so it is $520,000 in this case.
Answer:
The company issues new common stock.
Explanation:
As we know that the cash balance have the debit balance so if there is increase in cash balance so the balance would remain in debit itself
In the given choices, the company issues common stock which increases the cash balance and the journal entry is as follows
Cash Dr XXXXX
To Common stock XXXXX
(Being the common stock is issued for cash)
And, the rest transactions shows the outflow of cash
