<span>total cost (T.C.) = 5120
cost for material (M.C.) = 2840
installation charge (I.C.) = 1.90/sq. ft.
T.C. = M.C. + I.C. * Area of living room (A)
or, 5120 = 2840 + 1.90 * A
or, A = (5120 - 2840) / 1.90
Area of living room = 1200 sq. ft.</span>
Answer:
This is an actual court case where the Supreme Court of Rhode Island ruled in favor of Cox Communications in February, 2014.
The court ruled that Ovalles was an employee for M&M, and that M&M had an independent contractor relationship with Cox Communications. Additionally, Ovalles was also an independent contractor for M&M, not an employee. There existed no direct relationnship between Cox and Ovalles.
Even though Ovalles and other independent contractors use both Cox's and M&M's logos on their vans and uniforms, this was done so consumers could identify them. The fact that an identification is needed so customers can determine the function of a technician, doesn't imply that those technicians are actually employees of the firm nor they actually a method of control over the technicians.
Since Cox didn't control the performance of Ovalles and didn't have contact with him, then there was no reason to consider him an employee of Cox.
The plaintiff, Barbara Cayer probably made a mistake when it included Cox in the lawsuit (since it is a large company), and she would have had a better case against M&M because that company did have control over Ovalles's performance and did have contact with him. But since M&M was a much smaller firm, they decided to go after the big fish. Later they tried to include M&M into the lawsuit but it was rejected since the Supreme Court had not made their ruling yet.
Idk if this is right but you could say, Hey i would appreciate it if you would not to bump into me, i feel like i'm being abused. Something like that?
True I think don’t make and answer off me think harder about it
there are 318 you had to add or subtract is that I did not understand you