Answer:
b. it promotes public goals such as economic growth, low inflation, and the smooth operation of financial markets.
Explanation:
This is generally what the federal reserve does, and they try to stop both deflation and inflation
Answer:
b. At the signing of the contract
Explanation:
A contract can be defined as an agreement between two or more parties (group of people) which gives rise to a mutual legal obligation or enforceable by law.
Mutual assent is a legal term which represents an agreement by both parties to a contract. When two parties to a contract both have an understanding of the parameters, terms and conditions surrounding a contract, it ultimately implies that they are in agreement; this is generally referred to as mutual assent and it is at this point they (buyer and seller) sign the contract. Therefore, mutual assent connotes agreement, acceptance and consent to a contract by both parties.
<em>Hence, in most transactions, the buyer is accepting the condition of the property at the signing of the contract as an approval or consent to the terms and conditions. </em>
I would invest in building my own house. This is appealing to me because I want to raise a family in a nice house that I have built.
Answer:
$66,240
Explanation:
Calculation to determine what amount of net assets is with donor restrictions reported in the year the pledge was received
Using this formula
Net Assets=Unconditional pledge amount *Present value of an ordinary annuity
Let plug in the formula
Net Assets=$20,000*3.312
Net Assets=$66,240
Therefore what amount of net assets is with donor restrictions reported in the year the pledge was received will be $66,240
Answer:
The full description of the particular circumstance is listed underneath in the overview section.
Explanation:
- Throughout the one side, as either a consequence of getting fathomed their deal, I have seen whether it could be Luther's mistake and therefore tried repeatedly to be doing the promotions that may be thought of as unfair intervention, but it does not mean that he did so to mess with their deal when he could have simply considered mischievously promoting.
- As either a consequence of the positioning of these commercials, he undoubtedly planned to intervene legitimately with the mere truth of comprehension of the deal. Because Martha as well as Harley seems to have a deal, as a direct consequence of maintaining a long-term partnership within the deal, Martha may be the controller responsible for the unjust personal behavior, and Martha just skits the service agreement as something of a consequence of loving the advertisements.
- I wouldn’t believe they would always keep Martha accountable for anything although she might using the justification that religion gave her a more comprehensive bargain that is fair to justify unjust action. There seem to be no separate offenses whereby Harley can use for her protection, such as aggravated assault or slander.