The law suit that The customers are going to give here is based on the product liability.
<h3>What is a product liability?</h3>
This is a suit that is made against a company due to the fact that they allowed a defective good to be bought by a consumer.
The company is being sued due to the fact that the customers are injured fron the defective bicycle.
Read more on product liability here: brainly.com/question/25754997
Answer:
Current Assets = $29,400
Explanation:
Total Assets = Total Liabilities + Owner's Equity
$98,300 = (Long Term Debt + Current Liabilities ) + Owner's Equity
$98,300 = $38,600 + Current Liabilities + $41,600
Current Liabilities = $98,300 - $38,600 - $41,600
Current Liabilities = $18,100
Net Working Capital = Current Assets - Current Liabilities
$11,300 = Current Assets - $18,100
Current Assets = $11,300 +$18,100
Current Assets = $29,400
Answer:
<em>Ratification by Principal One of the criteria for enactment is that all material truths involved in the transaction must be known to the Principal. Van Stavern was not aware of Hash's behaviour. </em>
He did not realize that somehow the steel is being shipped under his name, and that the shipments were being billed him directly. Unlike liability through obvious authority, approval by the principal is a positive act by which he or she acknowledges the agent's illegal actions.
Just a principal would ratify; thus, Van Stavern was not directly imputed to information by the invoices and checks signed by Van Stavern's workers.
The court stated that the use of corporate checks was further proof that Van Stavern regarded the expenditures as business, not private. So Van Stavern could not be held personally liable.
Remember that on Sutton Steel that's not excessively harsh. Sutton understood it was working with a building company and did not seek to get the personal approval of the contract from Van Stavern.
<em>Lawfully, Sutton's agreement in this case is called an unaccepted offer which can be withdrawn at any time.</em>
<em></em>
Answer:
1. Deductive
2. Inductive
3. Deductive
Explanation:
Deductive research is a form of reasoning that stems from existing theories that can be tested. Data is collected to test a theory and the results are analyzed. The first and third scenarios are deductive research works because there are existing theories or data that can be worked on. In the first instance, data on issues of turnover already exist. In the third scenario, there were theories to explain gender differences.
Inductive research proposes a theory after observation. This is applicable in the second instance where the manager proposes the theory that relates distance to absenteeism after close observation.
The Bretton woods system of exchange rates relied on <u>"fixed or pegged exchange rates, with occasional orderly adjustments to the rates."</u>
The Bretton Woods arrangement of money related administration built up the rules for business and monetary relations among the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and Japan after the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement. The Bretton Woods framework was the principal case of a completely arranged financial request expected to administer money related relations among free states. The central highlights of the Bretton Woods framework were a commitment for every nation to embrace a fiscal approach that kept up its outer trade rates inside 1 percent by binds its money to gold and the capacity of the IMF to connect transitory uneven characters of installments. Likewise, there was a need to address the trouble among different nations and to anticipate focused depreciation of the monetary forms also.
