Answer:
21.11176754
Explanation:
storate cost: 0.30
as the storage is continusly we use continuos interest rate:
0.30 / 4 = 0.075 per quarter
this is paid in advance so we calculate the present values of this payment

PV = 0.295552053
Now we solve for the future value of silver using also a continuos rate

(20 + 0.295552053)e^0.04 = 21.11176754
The correct answers to the questions are as follows:
1. NO, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE MONEY DAMAGES ARE AVAILABLE.
When a party to a contract refuse to fulfill the terms of a contract, there are two forms of punishments that can be imposed on such an offender. It is either the court force the offender to perform the tasks expected of him or he can be asked to pay financial fines, which represents the damages incurred as a result of abandoning his work. In the question given above, money damages option is available, so Spud does not necessarily have to be forced to complete the job.
2. The correct answer is this: NO, SINCE BREACHING A CONTRACT IS USUALLY HELD TO BE A BUSINESS DECISION [NOT AN ACTION OF MORAL TURPITUDE] PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE RARELY AWARDED IN CONTRACT CASES.
Punitive damages are damages imposed by the court of law, which are targeted at differing an offender and others from engaging in conducts that are similar to that which formed the basis of the concerned lawsuit. Punitive damages are usually awarded if the court feels that the compensatory damages awarded is not enough to compensate the injured party. Punitive damages are only awarded in special cases and usually under tort law; punitive damages generally can not be awarded in contract disputes.
After Associates degree, it would be Bachelors degree. Hope this helps. :)
Do know how to follow instructions and work as a team
Answer: Yes
Explanation: In the above case, a quasi-contract was formed. This is when a bilateral contract is not in place but one party will enjoy the benefit of the activities of the other party and may be enriched by it.
A bilateral agreement is the exchange of a promise for another and in this case would have been, the promise that Dozier would pay for Paschall’s work. This was not established, however, Dozier will benefit from Paschall’s work unduly if he does not pay for the improvements. The law holds that he has to pay for Paschall’s work to prevent being unjustly enriched.