Answer:
No you would not be an entrepreneur
Explanation:
Answer:
Considering done
Explanation:
what to eat sleep and wear? yes
Answer:
D. All of these are correct
Explanation:
Option A should be included in the email privacy policy of a company.
--- The company should define the users email address authentic and not spam. The company should provides its users a legitimate email accounts and also explains the employees what happens to the email accounts once that employee leaves the company.
Option B should be included in the email privacy policy of a company.
--- Junk and spam emails are most annoying and useless emails in the corporate world. Employees should be explained not to send any junk messages using the company's email accounts. Sending spam mails are discouraged. Sending junk emails can also harm the computer and can steal important company data from the computer.
Option C should be included in the email privacy policy of a company.
--- The company should inform the email users of the organization that once an email is sent outside the organization, the organization have no control over the email sent and cannot stop neither can it change the content of the email.
Therefore the answer is ----
D. All of these are correct
<span>Such type of memories are called as FlashBulb Memories, which regirters all the incidents and things happened on that time into the memory. if a question is raised to such type of persons with date and time, they immediately narrate the actual things happend without missing anything.</span>
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.
