Answer:
d. right to choose
Explanation:
By not presenting any other alternatives for acetaminophen, the pharmacist is violating the consumers' right to chose. According to this right, consumers should be provided with a variety of options of products at a satisfactory quality and competitive prices, which does not occur if they only have one brand to choose from.
The answer is alternative d. right to choose
Answer:
H0 : Average price of homes sold in US = 24000 ; H1 : Average price of homes sold in US ≠ 24000
t calculated value = 2 , t critical (tabulated) value = 1.96
calculated t > critical t . Null Hypothesis is rejected, It is concluded that 'Average price of homes sold in US ≠ 24000 '
Explanation:
Null Hypothesis : Average price of homes sold in US = 24000
Alternate Hypothesis : Average price of homes sold in US ≠ 24000
t = (x' - u) / (s / √n)
x' = sample mean = 246000 (given)
u = population mean = 240000 (given)
s = standard deviation = 36000
n = no. of observations = 144
t = (246000 - 240000) / (36000/√144)
6000/ (36000/12000) = 6000/3000
t = 2
Critical value for a two tailed test at 5% significance level, 0.025 in t distribution = 1.96
Since calculated value, 2 > tabulated or critical value at significance level, 1.96. So, we reject the null hypothesis. This implies that <u>'Average price of homes sold in US ≠ 24000</u>'
Answer:
1.Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant] - The plaintiff is Henry Keller of H.K.Enterprises and the defendant is Bank of Nigeria and Nigerian individuals Central Bank of Nigeria, Paul Ogwuma, ?Alhaji Rasheed, Alhaji M.A. Sadiq.
2.Facts [Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case] - The case was filed by Keller against the defendants in United States. The case was filed under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) as the plaintiff found himself a victim of fraud and financial scam.The scam occured when one of the defendants approached the plaintiff who was the sales representative of medical equipments for granting him the distribution rights for Nigeria. The expected amount of money was not transferred in the account of plaintiff inspite of his attempts of meeting the requirements of the defendants. The defendants acted on the behalf of Central Bank of Nigeria and as Nigerian individuals.
3.Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?] - The appeal was filed by the defendants Central Bank of Nigeria,?Paul Ogwuma, Alhaji Rasheed, Alhaji M.A. Sadiq. The lower court gave the decision that the claims of fraud and misrepresentation do not hold against the defendants as the plaintiff entered into an arrangement with them which is not legal and as per the rules. However the lower court ruled that immunity cannot be given under FSIA to the defendants as the commercial activity is an exception and claims for violation of RICO are applicable on them.
4. Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns] - The case turns on the appeal of defendants to be granted immunity under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The ruling indicated that the defendants have sovereign authority. Also, the commercial activity clause did not apply in this case as the activity was not done in United States and did not meet the legal standards of a commercial activity.
5.Explain the applicable law(s). - Applicable laws are Common law fraud, violations of RICO(Rackteer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), Misrepresentation.
6.Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?] - The court resolved the issue by giving a decision in the favor of defendants by ruling that immunity is given to Foreign nationals under FSIA and dismissed any claims filed against them under RICO.
7.Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's decision] - The logic supporting the court's decision is that the arrangement between the plaintiff and defendants including the signed contract was not as per the laws and rules and was not legally compliant. Moreover the commercial activity was out of bounds for United states so the exception to FISA is not applicable. The defendants claimed that they did not enter into the contract with the plaintiff.
Explanation:
Answer:
Company's stock price is $455 million
Explanation:
MVA = Market Value of Shares – Book Value of Shareholders’ Equity
$165 million = Market Value of Shares - 290 million
$165 million + 290 million = Market Value of Shares
Market Value of Shares = 455 million
Market Value of Shares = 455 million
Market Value of Shares = 455 million
Company's stock price = 455 million
