a breach in the contract -C.-court of appeals case
Answer:
Villain
Explanation:
a grand thief, a perpetrator of genocide, a racist, a destroyer of cultures
A sample of a written paper to the NASA Internship Selection Committee identifying the mission you are interested in and why you would like to work on that mission is:
I believe that I have the necessary qualifications and experience working with NASA engineers over the past year, fixing their engines, and learning how the space station works and what is expected.
I believe as a student, going on this mission would show that NASA is committed to ensuring the inclusion of people from all walks of life that is interested in working with space technicians, engineers, and other professionals in the field.
<h3>What is a Persuasive Speech?</h3>
This refers to the use of words that shows the intent of a speaker to try and convince a person about a particular thing.
Hence, we can see that based on the given question, a sample of a persuasive speech is given to the NASA Internship Selection Committee identifying the mission you are interested in and why you would like to work on that mission.
Read more about persuasive speeches here:
brainly.com/question/14047451
#SPJ1
Answer: Ultramares corporation v. Touche established Ultramares doctrine. Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that scienter is required before CPAs can be held liable.
Explanation:
All the options except the above are true. Ultramares corporation v. Touche did establish the Ultramares doctrine.
United States v. Natelli sentenced two CPAs to prison for a year, in addition to fines, for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bily v. Arthur Young did not uphold the restatement doctrine. The restatement doctrine restatement doctrine makes an auditor liable to people who rely on the quality of his work be they his clients or third parties. Two high courts ruled that auditors are not liable to third parties who use their work but only to the party that contracted their work.
However, Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that an allegation of scienter (an intention to deceive) is not required before CPAs can be held liable as long as the actions constitute actual deception.
While rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act states the presence of scienter as a requirement to commit an offense, the court ruled against the statute by eliminating the Scienter clause from criminal statute and ruled against Ernst & Ernst.