Answer:
have a high "divorce rate."
Explanation:
A strategic alliance can as well reffered to as strategic partnership and can be regarded as agreement that exist between two parties or more so that they can work in acheiving some objectives they agreed on even though they still remains as an independent organization to each other. It should be noted that Experience indicates that strategic alliances have a high "divorce rate."
Answer:
Rawls' Theory of Justice.
Explanation:
Rawls argues that self-interested rational persons behind the veil of ignorance would choose two general principles of justice to structure society in the real world: 1) Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all.
The amount that the company is worth at that exact time
Answer:
Yes, Dealer could collect damages from GM because basically GM breached the contract. Any time a contract is breached, the non-breaching party can sue. But the real question here is what amount could the court assign to Dealer as compensation for damages incurred. If you want to rephrase this question, it would be: What damages did Dealer suffer due to GM's breach.
If the damages are not significant, then the court will probably assign some amount for nominal damages. To be honest, the greatest expenses here are actually the legal costs of the lawsuit. Unless Dealer can prove that assigning the contract actually hurt them (which I doubt), then the court will assign a small amount. Sometimes nominal damages can be very small and mostly symbolic, e.g. $1.
The Federal Open Market Committee can act almost immediately.