Answer:
d. The decision maker must only stick to completely rational, mathematical analysis while selecting an alternative.
Explanation:
It is most ideal for a decision maker to stick to completely rational way of selecting an alternative as this means that the decision maker will only make choices that will be of maximum benefits and low costs. Factors such as personal feelings, or sense of obligation do not interefere when a decision maker sticks to completely rational and mathematical analysis method of decision making.
Answer:
C. Spencer will win because regardless of whether Glen was acting within the scope of his employment, Sally is liable for his negligence
Explanation:
Spencer will win the lawsuit and Sally is liable for negligence.
This is because, Sally was the person originally hired to do the roofing job.
She hired other workers to help her with the job, so she's liable to their actions and inactions.
Sally is operating under a working agreement (contract) and has already charged a fee of $10,000 so any punitive damages would be her responsibility.
Spencer was moving around and Glen threw some roofing shingles without any word of warning to people that might be in harm's way. So for Glenn's actions, Sally is liable for his negligence.
- A declinatory exception of unsuitable venue must be filed by the defendants.
- The exception needs to be brought up before or in the answer, before or concurrently with any pleading that requests relief other than ministerial ones, like the appointment or removal of counsel of record or an extension of time to plead, and in any case, before the confirmation of a default judgment.
- Any additional declinatory or dilatory exceptions must be argued concurrently if they are to be considered.
<h3>What is mean by plaintiff ?</h3>
A plaintiff is the person or entity who files a lawsuit with the court. The plaintiff is looking for a legal remedy by doing this. If the search is successful, the judge will rule in the plaintiff's favor and issue the necessary orders.
Learn more about plaintiff here:
brainly.com/question/7315287
#SPJ4
Answer:
Explanation:
Solution-
According to Senator Jones, the elasticity of taxable income is larger, which means that due to a certain percentage rise in taxes, the taxable income rises by a greater percentage. Also, according to Senator Smith, the elasticity of taxable income is small, which means that due to a certain percentage rise in taxes, the taxable income rises by a smaller percentage.
(I) Under Senator Jones assumptions, due to rise in taxes, the taxable income has risen considerably as compared to Senator Smith assumptions. Thus the estimates of additional revenue from the tax increase will be larger under Senator Jones assumptions, compared to Smith's assumptions.
(ii) Since under Senator Jones assumptions, elasticity of taxable income is large. So due to rise in taxes, there is a significant proportional rise in taxable income under Jone's assumptions compared to Senator Smith assumptions. Thus the costs of the tax increase is borne more under Senator Jones assumptions , compared to Smith's assumptions.
