<span>The question is incomplete, here is the complete question which I previously came across;</span>
When Janice went to work as a hair stylist in Rick's beauty shop, she entered into an agreement with Rick, whereby, if she left she would not work for another beauty shop within 50 miles for 2 years. Rick trained Janice in a number of new techniques. After nine months, Janice was offered a great job down the street at a new beauty shop, quit Rick, and had a number of customers follow her down the street to her new job. Rick claimed that she had signed a contract and had no right to go to work at the new shop. Janice disagreed and told Rick that no judge in the country would enforce such an agreement. Janice told Rick that she was more worried about a customer, Treena, who was threatening to sue her because her hair turned green after Janice worked on it. Janice agreed that Treena's hair was damaged. Janice pointed out, however, that she told Treena that odd results could result from a dye attempt, and she required that Treena sign a contract releasing Janice from all liabilities before she did anything with Treena's hair. Treena, however, sued anyway. The agreement Rick and Janice entered into is referred to as?
The answer is, the agreement Rick and Janice entered into is referred to as "<span>covenant not to compete".</span>
<span>
</span>
It is hard
to decide if a judge will implement a non-competition agreement. While the privileged insights of a business are important,
the law additionally puts value to a person's opportunity to seek after other
work. To be enforceable Courts more often than not require that a contract not
to compete be sensible. In California, non-competes are adequately unlawful
except if you are selling a business. Different states will implement a few provisions,
as a rule the trade secret protection, however not the work limitations.
The government would set its targeted interest at 6.5%
Based on the Taylor's rule
R = π + A + 0.5(A-A*) + 0.5
This is the formula that helps to get the output gap
<u>Definition of terms</u>
R is the nominal federal funds rate
π is the real rate of federal funds = 2%
A is the rate of inflation
A* is the target of of inflation = 2%
Rate of unemployment = 3%
The government has a target of full employment that is at 4 percent.
When we enter the values into the formula
R = 2% + 3% + 0.5(3%-2%) + 0.5%(2%)
= 5% + 0.5% + 1%
= 6.5%
Therefore the government would set its targeted interest at 6.5%
Read more on brainly.com/question/14466278?referrer=searchResults
Answer:
$0.1
Explanation:
The per unit cost of a production is the sum of variable cost and fixed cost divided by the total number of units produced. The per unit cost is given by the formula:
Per unit cost = (Variable cost + Fixed cost) / Number of units produced
Variable cost = Cost of raw material = Units of raw material × Cost of each unit of raw material = 5 units × $4/unit = $20
Fixed cost = Cost of labor + Capital =(Units of capital × Cost of each unit of capital) + (Units of labor × Cost of each unit of labor) = (8 units × $3/unit) + (2 units × $10/unit) = $24 + $20 = $44
Variable cost + Fixed cost = $20 + $44 = $64
Per-unit cost of production = (Variable cost + Fixed cost) / Total output = $64 / 640 = $0.1
This seems like a rather subjective question. Wealth is built over a lifetime with income. Inheritance is definitely one way to become wealthy, so I would say <u><em>True </em></u>
Answer:
Unocal was attracted to Burma for several reasons. First, labor was cheap and relatively educated. Second, Burma was rich in natural gas resources. Third, Burma was an entry point into other international markets, particularly in and around Southeast Asia. Finally the political environment was extremely stable.
Explanation: