Answer:
From the information given about the contract and its execution between the two parties involved( That is, Parc and Glaze), the option 2 is most likely.
2. Glaze will win because Glaze substantially performed and Parc prevented complete performance.
Explanation:
It is stated that Glaze was hired to remodel and furnish an office suite, after a submitted plans by Glaze were approved by Parc. It was further stated that the construction and painting had been done.
Although, with Glaze purchasing minor accessories which Parc rejected because they did not conform to the plans is a breach of contract, but that can be corrected by calling Glaze to order. However, it was Parc that refused to allow Glaze to make necessary corretion and complete the project and also refused to pay Glaze any part of the contract price.
I don't what the answer is but I will look for it
Answer:tortious interference
Explanation:
tortious interference is a law term that comes to mind when there is a breach of contract resulting from the competitor's actions. Tortious interference in Tort law(an area of law) deals with the situation in which there is damage to property emanating from intentional or negligent acts of the defendant, in this case the competitor in business. In which case the actions(competitive behaviour) of defendant is not justifiable and permissible and simultaneously breaches contract of plaintiff, it becomes tortious interference.
What exactly are debits and credits? In a nutshell, debits (dr) record all money that flows into an account, while credits (cr) record all money that flows out of an account.
Answer:
$26,600
Explanation:
the total amount of interest expense included in the first annual principal (or any annual payment actually) = principal's balance x yearly interest rate
$280,000 x 9.5% = $26,600
the principal's balance after the first payment = $280,000 - $26,600 = $253,400
the interest expense included in the second payment = $253,400 x 9.5% = $24,073