Answer:
Texas will be a better option as the net pay after income tax is higher than the other cities.
Explanation:
To consider the after-tax wages we must subtract the income taxes from the salaries:
Pennsylvania after tax income: 62,000 x (1-3.07%) = 60,096.6
Texas after tax income: 64,000
New York after tax income: 68,000 x ( 1 - 6.85%) = 63,342
<span>Meaning our boundaries
are ever-changing, defined by society, we don’t know what will happen next "so-called
improvements" are only superficial, it's only a distraction, distracts
oneself from the truth. The Society is unwieldy and overgrown, ruined by luxury
and heedless expenses. </span>
Answer:
D. All the above are legal tactics that the union can use to pressure management to accept the union's position on an issue.
Explanation:
Each and everyone one of the options mentioned above are tactics adopted by the union in pressuring management to accept their position on most of the issues which they have or are arguing about.
<span>It is associated with using a market penetration strategy when there is an opportunity for price skimming. Leaving money on the table means that during a business deal or negotiation one of the parties does not receive the amount of money they could have earned, instead they accept a smaller sum. This strategy can be beneficial or hurtful depending on the scenario.</span>
Answer:
<em>Ratification by Principal One of the criteria for enactment is that all material truths involved in the transaction must be known to the Principal. Van Stavern was not aware of Hash's behaviour. </em>
He did not realize that somehow the steel is being shipped under his name, and that the shipments were being billed him directly. Unlike liability through obvious authority, approval by the principal is a positive act by which he or she acknowledges the agent's illegal actions.
Just a principal would ratify; thus, Van Stavern was not directly imputed to information by the invoices and checks signed by Van Stavern's workers.
The court stated that the use of corporate checks was further proof that Van Stavern regarded the expenditures as business, not private. So Van Stavern could not be held personally liable.
Remember that on Sutton Steel that's not excessively harsh. Sutton understood it was working with a building company and did not seek to get the personal approval of the contract from Van Stavern.
<em>Lawfully, Sutton's agreement in this case is called an unaccepted offer which can be withdrawn at any time.</em>
<em></em>
