Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
There was a valid consideration because an amount of money $10,000 was promised and clearly agreed between both parties Erin and Stephanie.
There is an enforceable contract because there was an offer and acceptance; mutual obligation and consideration, and the subject matter was not illegal.
Contracts must not be written to be enforceable. Erin and Stephanie's contract was oral and still enforceable. The question however will be if Erin is of age to be able to pay $10,000 otherwise the contract may not be enforceable or binding.
B risk because technically these are all risky
Add up all the numbers and divide it by the amount of numbers there are. For example, the average of 2, 4, and 1 would be 2+4+1= 6, then 6/3 because there are 3 numbers.
Answer:
a. nothing.
Explanation:
Based on the scenario being described it can be said that in a contributory negligence jurisdiction, the plaintiffs could recover nothing. This is because a contributory negligence jurisdiction focuses on the plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care for their safety and therefore reducing the degree of the claim, which since in this case Precision Craft is not at fault at all then Stan's heirs would recover nothing in this case since the fault was on Stan's negligence.
I believe that the answer to the question provided above is that <span>the social trend of consuming is causing consumers to question whether or not firms are truly operating with consideration for the environment or simply changing marketing efforts in order to appear that they are.</span>
Hope my answer would be a great help for you. If you have more questions feel free to ask here at Brainly.
