Answer:
<em>Ratification by Principal One of the criteria for enactment is that all material truths involved in the transaction must be known to the Principal. Van Stavern was not aware of Hash's behaviour. </em>
He did not realize that somehow the steel is being shipped under his name, and that the shipments were being billed him directly. Unlike liability through obvious authority, approval by the principal is a positive act by which he or she acknowledges the agent's illegal actions.
Just a principal would ratify; thus, Van Stavern was not directly imputed to information by the invoices and checks signed by Van Stavern's workers.
The court stated that the use of corporate checks was further proof that Van Stavern regarded the expenditures as business, not private. So Van Stavern could not be held personally liable.
Remember that on Sutton Steel that's not excessively harsh. Sutton understood it was working with a building company and did not seek to get the personal approval of the contract from Van Stavern.
<em>Lawfully, Sutton's agreement in this case is called an unaccepted offer which can be withdrawn at any time.</em>
<em></em>
Answer:
Because :- CEOs & CFOs can have significant impacts throughout the entire business, & the type of reward plan will encourage the CFOs to work in a more rational manner.
Explanation:
CEOs & CFOs are a part of upper level of management of an organisation. Effectiveness & Efficiency of their managerial skills is very crucial to management of company. So, to encourage proper management of companies by senior managers, they can be incentivised by mix of fixed & variable salary structure. The variable component of salary as per company performance under CEO or CFO, positively motivates them to improvise their performance, which subsequently improves company performance.
Answer:
Explanation:
c:what type of business the person is in
that is the only logical answer lol
hope it helps
Answer:
$45,440.00
Explanation:
Jack's interest on capital =5%*$90,000=$4,500.00
Stevens' interest on capital =5%*$111,000=$ 5,550.00
Net income left to be shared in ratio 1:2 is the net income of $309,000 minus the total interest on capital of $10,050 i.e $4,500+$5,550 and salaries to Stevens
Net income left for sharing=$309,000-$10,050-$176,130=$ 122,820.00
Jack's share of profit=1/3*$ 122,820.00 =$ 40,940.00
Stevens' share of profits=2/3*$122,820.00 =$ 81,880.00
Amount distributed to Jack=$4,500+$ 40,940=$45,440.00
Answer:
The correct answer is a. more elastic demands.
Explanation:
There are some goods whose demand is very price sensitive, small variations in their price cause large variations in the quantity demanded. It is said of them that they have elastic demand. The goods that, on the contrary, are not sensitive to price are those of inelastic or rigid demand. In these large variations in prices can occur without consumers varying the quantities they demand. The intermediate case is called unit elasticity.
The elasticity of demand is measured by calculating the percentage by which the quantity demanded of a good varies when its price varies by one percent. If the result of the operation is greater than one, the demand for that good is elastic; If the result is between zero and one, its demand is inelastic.
The factors that influence the demand for a good to be more or less elastic are:
1) Type of needs that satisfies the good. If the good is of first necessity the demand is inelastic, it is acquired whatever the price; On the other hand, if the good is luxurious, the demand will be elastic since if the price increases a little, many consumers will be able to do without it.
2) Existence of substitute goods. If there are good substitutes, the demand for good will be very elastic. For example, a small increase in the price of olive oil can cause a large number of housewives to decide to use sunflower.
