The elements that would have to be in place for a contract to be unconscionable would be that
- They were under pressure
- They were misled
- They did not have the right information
<h3>What is meant by a contract?</h3>
This is the term that is used to refer to the fact that two people or more have agreed to do business with themselves.
In order to be a contract, one person would have to create a bargain and the other would be the one that would agree to the terms.
It is unconscionable at the time when the contract is done and the person or one of the parties is found not to have been able to make the contract agreement at their right frame of mind. In this case, the law has the power to protect this party.
Hence they would have to rule in his favor. Therefore to be unconscionable, a contract would have to have been misled, have been made under duress and without the adequate information.
Read more on contracts here:
brainly.com/question/5746834
#SPJ1
Answer:
Stock A will be preferable for the risk averse Investors.
Explanation:
The reason is that risk is the measure of the vulnerability of the returns on the investment made which means if the return on the investment has greater vulnerability of returns then it is highly risky. So the risk averse investor would prefer stock A with lower risk.
(Special comments:
It must be noted that the higher return shows that the investment is also highly risky because nobody is going to give you more with low risk associated investments. This means lower return on Stock B is also preferable here for the risk averse investor because it carries lower risks.)
Where did the answer go after I signed up? I sign up and the answer disapperas?
The United States government was correct in interfering with the growth of Standard Oil. Not only was the company taking advantage of existing situations, but eventually it would have controlled the oil market entirely. If Standard Oil was able to gain control of the market for a long period of time, consumers could have had to pay extremely high prices for the oil that they needed, limiting their purchase of other goods. Or Sample response: The United States government should not have interfered with the growth of Standard Oil. Because the company had managed to reduce production costs, it was able to offer very low prices to consumers. This benefited many Americans. Without the company's production benefits, citizens were not able to take advantage of this infrastructure.
