Answer:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Explanation:
<em>c</em><em>c</em><em>c</em><em>w</em><em>w</em><em>w</em><em>w</em><em>w</em><em>w</em><em>w</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>e</em><em>q</em>
Answer:
It does not
Explanation:
In this question, we are asked to evaluate if a particular transaction carried out between a customer and an inn falls within the dictates of the local consumer protection law in the state.
Firstly, we look at what the local consumer protection law of the state talks about. It explicitly stated that customers should get receipts when suppliers receive deposits from them. Thus, this make the receipt act as the first thing to have if there would be any claim under the consumer protection law for the transaction carried out in the state.
Now, looking at the particular scenario we have, the customer paid for the room, but he was not issued a receipt. This makes the case not treatable within the consumer protection law of the state as the receipt which should have been a prerequisite for further exploration is not available
a college professor gets paid 72,000 a year
All answers might be correct:)
