Answer:
Ball can certainly hold Sullivan to a contract for sale of the land. Sullivan in his reply to Ball's enquiry offered to sell the forty-acre tract of land at $60,000 and nothing less. Ball accepted this offer by Sullivan by stating his acceptance.
These exchanges of offer and acceptance meet the terms of a valid contract. Therefore, Ball can always hold Sullivan for contract enforcement.
Explanation:
In making a valid contract, offer and acceptance are key ingredients, with specific consideration. Since the two parties, Ball and Sullivan are agreed on the consideration and have exchanged offer and acceptance, the validity of the contract is enhanced thereupon.
I would recommend Liberty Mutual , They have a ton like in this snip i took for you.
Answer:
The concept of equivalence, also known as economic equivalence, describes the reduction of a series of cash inflows (benefits) and cash outflows (costs) to a single point in time, using a single interest rate, which enables the cash flows to be compared or equated. This implies that while the amounts and timing of the cash flows (both inflows and outflows) may differ, an appropriate interest rate, factoring in the time value of money, will cause one set to be equal to the other. Therefore, to establish economic equivalence, series of cash flows that occur at different points in time must be equalized using a single interest rate through present value calculations.
Explanation:
The concept of equivalence describes a combination of a single interest rate and the idea of the time value of money. This combination helps to determine the different amounts of money at different points in time that are equal in economic value, such that a person would not hesitate to trade one for the other.
For example, if the interest rate is 10% in Year 1 and in Year 2 and you are to be paid $1,000 in Year 1, it will not make any difference to you if you are paid $1,100 in Year 2. This is because, given the prevailing interest rate of 10%, the value you receive in Year 1 and Year 2 are equivalent.
Answer:
Refer David to another company.
Explanation:
In the given case, promoting other minority employees is not the correct action because the victim is David. Hiring other African Americans make up for David's loss is not the correct answer either because of the same reason. Paying David's legal costs is not an effort towards compensating for the discrimination. The company is likely required to give David a referral to another company which is the only action that affects David directly in terms of compensation. I hope this was helpful.
