Answer:
The principle in Law 'Nemo dat quod non habet' states that an individual connot give what he does not have
Indeed Tom can rescind the contract with Matthew as he possesses voidable title to the balls
Explanation:
Until consideration has moved from Matthew to Tom the validity of the agreement/Contract remains inconclusive.
Considering his Account is not funded means he has no valid title to the Balls, he is merely in possession of the Balls but not the Owner.
Tom can sue demanding a return of the Balls irrespective of Matthew having sold them to Aaron.
Another illustration could be given of a thief who sells off a property. Inspite of the Buyer being unaware, because the thief has a voidable title it makes the transaction invalid.
Answer and Explanation:
1. At 0fficial exchange rate:
100 * 0.5 = $50
what I want to buy would be purchased at $50
at market exchange rate:
0.25 x 100 = $25
products bought from this place are not a good deal as I am paying more than the market exchange rate.
2. at equilibrium exchange rate:
100 x 0.25% = $25
the price is $25
3. from answers 1 and 2, I will not want demand Stan's rupees. the products are costly to get.
4. Stan's currency is obviously overvalued. the people from this country now has increased purchasing power so they can purchase goods in dollars, therefore they would be supplying their currency.
5. They will have to buy up the surplus of rupees so that they can easily keep up with maintaining the rupee at half a dollar.
Answer:
Not sure but I think is B. again not sure
Explanation:
