Asking good questions promote critical thinking because if a person was able to be provided with sensible and good questions, his or her critical thinking will be of help and will be of benefit to the person, making it to be promoted as the question is sensible and the use of his or her critical thinking has become something that he or she will made use of and will be something worth it.
Answer:
Louise's defense is not valid. She was involved in an Implied-in-fact contracts
Explanation:
Implied-in-fact Contracts
This is a contract that is legally enforceable as a result of an agreement made by conduct and from assumed intentions. These conducts and assumed intentions are derived from the relationship among the involved parties.
When Louise saw Midcity Painters painting her house and made no comments, she became involved a implied-in-fact contract. The conduct of Midcity to paint her house and her conduct to be quiet infact formed a legally enforceable contract.
Louise, therefore, liable. However, due to the lack of contractual terms such as payment for the job done, Louise will be liable for the nominally or typically acceptable rate for such a job done. For instance, if a normal house paint job costs $2000, Louise is liable to pay $2000 for the implied contract.
Answer:
$5,750,000
Explanation:
Given that,
Net working capital = $750,000
Current Liabilities = $2,000,000
Book value of the net fixed assets = $3,000,000
Net working capital = Current assets - Current Liabilities
Book value of the current assets:
= Net working capital + Current Liabilities
= $750,000 + $2,000,000
= $2,750,000
Book value of the firm's assets:
= Book value of the current assets + Book value of the net fixed assets
= $2,750,000 + $3,000,000
= $5,750,000
Answer:
The answer is: A) Ms. Harper has unlimited liability, which means creditors can claim against her personal assets.
Explanation:
One of the most important characteristic of a partnership is unlimited liability. That means that in case the partnerships goes bankrupt, the partners are responsible for paying the partnership´s debt even with their own personal assets.
If one partner doesn´t have enough assets to meet his share of the debt, the other partner (or partners) can be held liable for the unpaid debt.
The inconsistency described above is known as cognitive dissonance. It is a theory that describes the tendency of an individual to find consistency of the cognitive functions. When this is not met, some behaviors and attitudes are to be changed in order to eliminate the inconsistency.