<span>The correct answer is
False</span>
Explicit collusions are
not legal because they lead to cartel like behavior. This is because they
involve a situation where a small group of oligopolists recognize their mutual interdependence
and act to coordinate their behavior in the form of a cartel
Answer:
a.the court will find that the third party is a holder in due course and, despite the fact that TP has defrauded Choi, not require the third party to repay Choi
Explanation:
In the event where TP who sold a franchise to Choi decides to go out of business and transfers everything to a third. In a lawsuit the court will find that the third party is a holder in due course and, despite the fact that TP has defrauded Choi, not require the third party to repay Choi.
To help maintain a balanced personal budget sounds like the answer. Hope it helps! :-)
Answer:
$55.134
Explanation:
Given
dividend paid on its stock = $8.25
Duration is next 13 years
P0 = dividend on its stock × (PVIFA of return on this stock,years)
Remember PVIF = (1 - (1 + r)^-n)/r
Where PVIFA = present value interest factor of annuity
r = interest rate per period
n = number of periods
Therefore
P0 = $8.25 × (PVIFA11.2%,13)
P0 = $55.134
A settlement made with the aid of using a minor is frequently voidable, however a minor can most effective keep away from a settlement all through his or her minority popularity and for an inexpensive time after he reaches the age of majority. After an inexpensive length of time, the settlement is deemed to be ratified and cannot be avoided.
- Facts of the case: Sean, 17, a snowboarder, signs a long-term endorsement agreement for sportswear. At age 19, he wants to void the agreement by claiming that he lacked capacity when he signed the deal at 17.
- Rule of Law: Minor's Contracts are voidable at the option of Minor.
- Analysis: Since, Minor's Contract is voidable at the option of the Minor who Signs the Contact can either honor the contract or void the contract. A minor can void a contract for lack of capacity, only when he is still under the age of majority. If a minor turn 18 i.e., After attaining Majority and hasn't done anything to void the contract, then the contract can no longer be voided.
- Here, Sean has not done anything to void the contract on attaining the age of 18. So, he at the age of 19, cannot void the agreement by claiming that he lacked capacity when he signed the agreement at 17.
- Decision: Sean Vs. Sportswear Company: In the light of the above provisions, a Court will not permit Sean to now void the agreement.
Learn more about minority popularity here:
brainly.com/question/14457086
#SPJ4
