Answer:
Louise's defense is not valid. She was involved in an Implied-in-fact contracts
Explanation:
Implied-in-fact Contracts
This is a contract that is legally enforceable as a result of an agreement made by conduct and from assumed intentions. These conducts and assumed intentions are derived from the relationship among the involved parties.
When Louise saw Midcity Painters painting her house and made no comments, she became involved a implied-in-fact contract. The conduct of Midcity to paint her house and her conduct to be quiet infact formed a legally enforceable contract.
Louise, therefore, liable. However, due to the lack of contractual terms such as payment for the job done, Louise will be liable for the nominally or typically acceptable rate for such a job done. For instance, if a normal house paint job costs $2000, Louise is liable to pay $2000 for the implied contract.
Answer:
The correct option here is B)
Explanation:
The non compete clause is an agreement between an employer and employee ( as it is in this question between Roger and HR consulting firm ) , where an employee agree to the wishes of employer to not to work for firms which are competing against the employer in the same market.
Answer:
The explanation of that situation is below.
Explanation:
To begin with, the most important factor to have in mind in the situation explained above is the fact that we are talking about a "luxury good" and therefore that when it comes to this type of goods is better when the majority of the people do not possess or at least they must represent the fact that they are exclusive for only some part of the population. That is why that those goods use the strategy of increase always the price because that will means that they are not affordable for the majority of the society but only for a few and that will give to the owner of the good a sense of uniqueness and with that it also comes the sense of superiority. That is why that when it comes to this type of good the analysis change and it collides with the other theory of utility maximation.
Explanation:
i=interest rate
X=current rate
2X = double current rate
n = number of years
Calculate time it takes to double at 3%:
2X = X(1+i)^n
simplify by cancelling out X
(1+i)^n = 2
substitute i = 3%
(1.03)^n =2
take log
n*log(1.03) = log(2)
n = log(2)/log(1.03) = 0.6931/0.02956 = 23.45 years
Similarly, for growth rate of 7%,
n = log(2)/log(1.07) = 0.6931 / 0.06766 = 10.24 years
So the difference is 23.45-10.24 = 13.21 years (to the hundredth) sooner
