This seems like a rather subjective question. Wealth is built over a lifetime with income. Inheritance is definitely one way to become wealthy, so I would say <u><em>True </em></u>
Expected rate of return is defined as the amount of money an individual gets on investment.
<h3>What is expected return?</h3>
The expected return is the amount of profit or addition on money invested that an individual who is an investor is expected to get after a periods of time on the investment.
Therefore, expected rate of return is defined as the amount of money an individual gets on investment.
Learn more on rate of return below
brainly.com/question/16725994
#SPJ1
Answer:
There is some information missing, and when I looked for it I found similar questions but the demand was already given and the question was about Vincent's total daily income.
Passenger Price Daily demand
Adults $18 70
Children $10 25
Senior citizens $12 55
total 150
total revenue per day = ($18 x 70) + ($10 x 25) + ($12 x 55) = $1,260 + $250 + $660 = $2,170
total operating costs per day = (150 / 50) x $450 = $1,350
operating income per day = $2,170 - $1,350 = $820
<h2>Jill's interest in the property will: <u>Pass to Jill's heirs </u>(Option B)</h2>
Explanation:
Let us understand the meaning of tenancy: It is the "possession of any property which might be land or building and get connected as tenant".
In contrast, ownership means the property belongs that person alone or in partnership.
Understanding the above terms, We can say, Jack and Jill have been a tenant and after ten years, Jill dies. So the rest of the interest in the property will definitely go to his heirs only.
It cannot be passed to Jack because Jill's interest will not be paid by other person except for Jill's heirs. Jack heirs are no way responsible or own the property of Jack.
<span>Lost profits are consequential damages. Haddad is right that a buyer may not recover consequential damages that it could have prevented by cover. But Jewell-Rung offered legitimate reasons for not covering: the only Lakeland garments now available to it were those made by Olympic. Olympic would not sell a competitor the garments at reasonable prices. Further, Jewell-Rung could not rely on the quality of the garments manufactured by a different company. Jewell-Rung's failure to cover was reasonable and the company was entitled to prove its lost profits. Jewell-Rung Agency, Inc. v. Haddad Organization, Ltd</span>
