Answer:
consequential damages
Explanation:
According to my research on different types of law suits, I can say that based on the information provided within the question Bill can recover the 900 he lost from Carl as consequential damages. These are damages have happened because of one party's failure to meet a certain deadline or contractual obligation and can be proven in court. Therefore since Bill can prove that he lost the 900 because of Carl's negligence he will most likely win that case.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
You become broke cause you don't pay your bills on time or car notes that's why the economy is failing
<span />
Answer:
$77,217
$11,289
Explanation:
Fist we will calculate the present value of $10,000 payment
A fix Payment for a specified period of time is called annuity. The discounting of these payment on a specified rate is known as present value of annuity. The value of the annuity is also determined by the present value of annuity payment.
Formula for Present value of annuity is as follow
PV of annuity = P x [ ( 1- ( 1+ r )^-n ) / r ]
Where
P = Annual payment = $10,000
r = rate of return = 10% / 2 = 5%
n = number of period = 5 years x 2 semiannual payments per year = 10 payments
PV of annuity = $10,000 x [ ( 1- ( 1+ 0.05 )^-10 ) / 0.05 ]
PV of Annuity = $77,217
Now we will use the discounting method to calculate the present value of lump sum payment of $20,000
Present value = Future value x Present value factor
PV = FV x ( 1 + r )^-n
PV = $20,000 x ( 1 + 0.1 )^-6
PV = $11,289
Answer:
False.
Explanation:
The concept of "Nash equilibrium" is been by economist and also by "gamers" in game theory. Nash equilibrium is so good for making decisions and the determination of strategies.
In playing this game, the players or participants can use the pure strategy or the mixed strategy. The mixed strategy is the use of different strategies randomly.
"If a player chooses a mixed strategy in a Nash equilibrium, this implies that the payoff from using that mixed strategy is the same as the payoff from using any of the pure strategies in it".
The statement given above is FALSE because the PAYOFF WILL INCREASE IF WE ARE TO PLAY A MIXED STRATEGY.
For instance if we have a head of 1 and -1, and a tail of -1 and 1, the payoff for pure strategy is likely one or minus one but for a mixed strategy it could be zero.
In this scenario, we have committed an error related to Procedural justice
Procedural justice refers to way of ensuring fair justice by making decisions according to fair processes to ensure fair treatment.
According to this justice rule, the same rule must be applied to similar scenario and must be impartial as well in order to ensure fair justice.
In conclusion, we have committed an error relating to procedural justice because the rule that was <em>applied to Julio </em>was <em>not applied to John</em>, therefore, there was a bias in justice.
Read more about this here
<em>brainly.com/question/10925598</em>
