Answer:
Hope this help these are things you should look for in a example for Individual Rights
Right to equality.
Right to live.
Right to earn.
Right to laugh.
Right to learn.
Right to eat food of his/her choice.
Right to wear clothes of his/her choice.
Right to choose career of his/her choice.
Right to marry person of his/her choice.
Right to buy house of his/her choice.
Explanation:
The renaissance was a time of education, art, music, and activities that did not revolve around the church. Often times adults and children alike would make art, play instruments, and learn in a school-like setting. They would also attend church everyday. And yes, they did have villages.
Answer:
True
Explanation:
because the government hardly had any power over them and the states made their own money/currency too.
Answer:
Definition. The number of inhabitants in or spread across designated subdivisions of an area, region, city or country.
Topography, climate, soil, water and mineral. Social, cultural and economic causes.
Explanation:
Plz mark brainliest
Answer: Ultramares corporation v. Touche established Ultramares doctrine. Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that scienter is required before CPAs can be held liable.
Explanation:
All the options except the above are true. Ultramares corporation v. Touche did establish the Ultramares doctrine.
United States v. Natelli sentenced two CPAs to prison for a year, in addition to fines, for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bily v. Arthur Young did not uphold the restatement doctrine. The restatement doctrine restatement doctrine makes an auditor liable to people who rely on the quality of his work be they his clients or third parties. Two high courts ruled that auditors are not liable to third parties who use their work but only to the party that contracted their work.
However, Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that an allegation of scienter (an intention to deceive) is not required before CPAs can be held liable as long as the actions constitute actual deception.
While rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act states the presence of scienter as a requirement to commit an offense, the court ruled against the statute by eliminating the Scienter clause from criminal statute and ruled against Ernst & Ernst.
