Its called Commensalism – symbiotic
Can you help me ?
Which value plotted on the number line rounds up when rounded to the nearest tenth?
Answer:
1. e. The Fed buys a security from a bank for $1,000.
In order to increase money supply, the Fed buys a security from the bank and gives them money.
2. d. The bank sets $100 aside as required reserves.
The bank will set aside 10% of the money paid by the Fed which comes to $100 leaving the bank with $900.
3. a. The bank lends $900 to a customer needing a loan.
The bank then lends this money to customer who needed it.
4. c. The customer spends the $900 at a store.
The customer then spends the money thereby transferring it to another party.
5. b. The store owner deposits the $900 in another bank.
The store owner then takes the money spent by the customer and deposits it in another bank. That bank then gives the Fed 10% and then the cycle repeats.
Answer:
What would be the result? What additional information, if any, would you need to know to decide the case?
To determine who would win this case, we need to know two things:
- The non-compete agreement was supposed to last how many years, e.g. 1 or 2 years, maybe 3?
- When did Clifford Witter stopped working for Arthur Murray Dance Studios and when did he started to work for Fred Astaire Dancing Studios?
Most states consider non-compete agreements valid only if they last up to 2 or 3 years at most (which is considered a reasonable time). If Clifford started to work at Fred Astaire before the non-compete clause was over (assuming it lasted a reasonable time) then Arthur Murray would win. But if Clifford started to work at Fred Astaire after the non-compete clause was over, then there is nothing Arthur Murray can do to win the case.
