The answer is <u>"Unlimited liability means the business is responsible for the debt it incurs. If the business cannot pay its bills, the debt burden transfers to the owner(s), and he/she/they are liable for all debt".</u>
Unlimited liability alludes to the lawful commitments general accomplices and sole proprietors since they are at risk for all business obligations if the business can't pay its liabilities. As it were, general accomplices and sole proprietors are in charge of satisfying the greater part of the organization obligations by and by if the organization can't make its installments.
In this sense, the entrepreneurs are boundlessly obligated for all the business activities. Claims make a major issue for accomplices with Unlimited liability.
Answer:
1. government shoud increase price by 50%. so it would be $3
2. larger effect 5 years from now
3. this is true due to their limited finance compared to adults
Explanation:
1. prices elasticity = % change in quantity demanded ÷ % change in price
price elasticity = 0.4
% change in dmd = 20%
% change in price = ?
we cross multiply
? = 0.20/0.4
= 0.5
= 50%
so if the government wants to reduce smoking by 20%, it has to increase the price of cigarettes by half of its price= $2 + $1 = $3
2. goods usually have more elastic demand as time goes on. So if cigarette price is permanently raised, it would have a bigger effect five years from now. This is based on the fact that the people may not feel short run effect of the increase as they would in the long run. But gradually given this increase, people may start to gradually reduce their smoking.
3. The effect of the change in price would be more felt on the teenagers. this is due to the fact that they have limited financial strength compared to adults. Also they are new to smoking compared to the adults and are more likely to be less involved in the habit.
<span>The population size at the end of 5 days will be approximately 37.207 members. This is calculated by multiplying the growth rate by the population size and adding this to the previous result.</span>
<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.
