Answer:
D) +25%.
Explanation:
If A offers 1/2 a share per 1 share of B, it means that the value of B's shares will increase from $20 to $25 (= $50 x 1/2). This $5 increase represents a 25% increase in wealth {= [($25 - $20) / $20] x 100}.
The price of the stock represents the wealth of the stockholders, since a stockholder that had 100 shares previously owned $2,000 in stocks, but as the price increases, the stockholder's wealth increases to $2,500.
Answer:
See the explanation below.
Explanation:
The court likely to rule in favor of Ewing.
The reason is that the enough consideration that gives backing to a promise in this case is generally the waiver of a legal right to eat to obesity as requested by the other party.
The evidence that Ewing has lost 154 pounds in weight over the stipulated period is a consideration that sufficient enough under the law. The payment of $10 pound that Ewing has lost is a promise. The fact that Ewing also benefit from the weight loss does not matter.
It’s Levi because it’s clearly written that Levi is a beginner. Hope that works!
Answer:
E. Ursula is likely to prevail because an enforceable unilateral contract exists based on her provision of information leading to the capture of Victor.
Explanation:
A unilateral contract is in existence because safe bank has made an offer to pay $10,000. And in a unilateral contract when an offerer like safe bank makes an offer, the offer is accepted through actual performance which Ted has done through information Ursula provided. Therefore Ursula would prevail because unilateral contracts are enforceable by the law.
