Answer:
Can you say what is the error
hope that helps you
please mark brainliest
please follow
It can be concluded that the supply of swimming pool maintenance services has decreased. We can not say that <span>the demand for swimming pool maintenance services has increased.It is not accurate to say things like the technology has advanced the swimming pool services. By means of the situation gievn, we can say that the maintenance services have decreased. </span>
Answer:
The correct answer is letter "A": for negligence because the harm was foreseeable.
Explanation:
In Law, foreseeability is a concept related to what the proximate causes could be after an event. The concept is helpful to determine the limit of liability according to the primary event that happened and the type and manner of harm. The harm caused by rescuers like firefighters and negligence of health care providers like doctors and nurses is considered foreseeable.
<em>In Emmy's case, the repeated thefts to the store where she works while having a nonfunctioning alarm (negligence) make the store owner liable for the injuries caused by a perpetrator who broke Emmy's leg during a robbery since that event was foreseeable.</em>
Answer:
$65,000
Explanation:
Borasco was the person who purchased the land for $65,000 in which the land was later transferred to Alvo. Therefore no gain or loss is been recognized in this liquidation because it subsidiary is been liquidated by the parent which is why the basis of land is said to be carryover basis of $65,000 at the end of the transaction.
Answer:
c. liable on the ground that Mesa is an intended third-party beneficiary
Explanation:
In a contract, the third-party beneficiary is a business or a person that benefits from the agreement and the terms of the contract that is made between the two other parties. According to law, third-party beneficiary have certain rights which they can enforced if the contract is not fulfilled.
In the context, Mesa is a third party beneficiary. The Mesa County enters into a contract with New Construct Inc. to construct a court house. Now New Construct Inc. again hires the firm Odell to excavate the land site.
While excavating Odell damages few nearby properties, so Mesa County files a law suit against Odell. But Odell argues that Odell is not in agreement with Mesa County or have not entered into with any contract with the County, so Mesa cannot sue the excavator.
But the court hold that as Mesa County is the third party beneficiary of the contract and have certain rights, Odell is held liable for the loss and should compensate for the loss to the County.
