Answer:
retaliation.
Explanation:
Title VII of hte Civil rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination at work based on race, color, ethnic origin, gender, religion, etc. What the company was doing was wrong, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) should deal with this issue. But what they did to Hailey for complaining about the company's wrong deeds is twice as bad. The company not only keeps discriminating African American employees but also retaliates against Hailey for demanding something that is correct and legal.
Yes I would sacrifice potentially winning the state title. Using performance enhancing drugs is both morally wrong, and illegal. If my team was to win states I would want it to be because we deserved it, not because players were taking drugs. Not only that, but the players who took the drugs could be causing a lot of harm to their bodies, something that isn't worth a title.
Answer:
Manufacturing overhead= $96,000
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Utilities, factory $ 11,000
Indirect labor $ 30,000
Depreciation of production equipment $ 51,000
<u>The manufacturing overhead includes all indirect costs regarding production. </u>
<u></u>
Manufacturing overhead= 11,000 + 30,000 + 51,000
Manufacturing overhead= $96,000
Answer:
Under the UPA ( uniform partnership act ) the partners share the profits of the business according to their contributions towards the business ( mostly financial contribution)
The UPA is used to address the issues of profit and loss sharing in a business partnership based on financial contribution towards the business and not based on service rendered to the business hence it won't work in this situation
Explanation:
Under the UPA ( uniform partnership act ) the partners share the profits of the business according to their contributions towards the business ( mostly financial contribution), the primary purpose of the uniform partnership act to to address certain in-formal or formal issue that was not addressed under the business agreement reached between the partners,
The reason why the UPA might not govern the sharing of the profits is because of the involvement of a partner who did not contribute towards the capital but contributes in terms of service. The UPA is used to address the issues of profit and loss sharing in a business partnership based on financial contribution towards the business and not based on service rendered to the business hence it won't work in this situation
Answer:
D) Both the landowner and the attorney.
Explanation:
The bank will succeed in obtaining a judgement against both the former landowner and the attorney. The bank can sue either of them or both of them, but it can only collect the $5,000 once.
- When the attorney assumed the mortgage, he expressly promised to pay it. The lender becomes a third party beneficiary of the attorney's promise to pay and can sue him if the mortgage isn't paid.
- The former landowner became secondarily liable to the lender in case the attorney didn't pay.
