The correct answers to the questions are as follows:
1. NO, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE MONEY DAMAGES ARE AVAILABLE.
When a party to a contract refuse to fulfill the terms of a contract, there are two forms of punishments that can be imposed on such an offender. It is either the court force the offender to perform the tasks expected of him or he can be asked to pay financial fines, which represents the damages incurred as a result of abandoning his work. In the question given above, money damages option is available, so Spud does not necessarily have to be forced to complete the job.
2. The correct answer is this: NO, SINCE BREACHING A CONTRACT IS USUALLY HELD TO BE A BUSINESS DECISION [NOT AN ACTION OF MORAL TURPITUDE] PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE RARELY AWARDED IN CONTRACT CASES.
Punitive damages are damages imposed by the court of law, which are targeted at differing an offender and others from engaging in conducts that are similar to that which formed the basis of the concerned lawsuit. Punitive damages are usually awarded if the court feels that the compensatory damages awarded is not enough to compensate the injured party. Punitive damages are only awarded in special cases and usually under tort law; punitive damages generally can not be awarded in contract disputes.
He may be over qualified so they dont think he'll stay long, or he may have had past money problems meening he wouldnt be trust worthey anoth.
hope that helps :)
<u>Explanation:</u>
A franchise business is one that allows another business (or non-profit) to carry out certain commercial activities, in a sense acting as an agent for the company.
Consider the following advantages:
1. Capital
The franchisor (the company that grants permission) may provide all the capital required to open and operate the non-profit.
2. Better-quality management. The years of experience accumulated by the franchisor may be of benefit to the non-profit. Thus, improving the quality of operations.
Other benefits include;
- increase their speed of Growth
- increased Profitability
- reduced Risk
Answer:
Ashley may not claim Candy as her dependant even if other requirements are met.
Explanation:
Ashley is single and lives with Barney, her boyfriend, and Candy, his 8-year-old daughter. Ashley paid all of the support for her household in 2018. Barney has earned income of $2,500 and had income tax withheld from his wages. He has no other income and is not required to file an income tax return. With one qualifying child, Barney may claim an earned income credit. Barney files an income tax return solely to obtain a refund of withheld income taxes and does not claim EIC. Because Barney does not have a filing requirement and filed only to obtain a refund of withheld income taxes, Candy is not considered the qualifying child of Barney or any other taxpayer
Based on the explanation given Ashley cannot claim Candy as an independent because of the tax payer rule. If other requirements are met, Ashley cannot claim Candy as dependent because the girl in question isn't her child . Moreover, Candy is the full responsibility of Barney. Candy is under Barney's care and is solely required by law to take care of her.
Answer: the insurance application has been submitted.
Explanation:
Insurance is a contract which is typically represented by a policy, whereby an individual will receive financial protection in case there are losses against the thing that was insured.
Since the insurance is a contract, an offer can be made when there has been an application for the insurance which would have been submitted.