An interior decorator asked a woodworker she met at a crafts fair to build a curly maple armoire. they entered into a written contract, with a contract price of $6,500 to be paid upon the decorator's receipt of the armoire. when the work was completed, the woodworker shipped the armoire to the decorator. after inspecting it, the decorator felt that it was not of the same high level of workmanship as she was expecting, given the other furniture that the woodworker had showcased at the fair, and a good faith dispute arose between the parties as to the workmanship. the decorator sent the woodworker a check for $4,000 marked "payment in full." the woodworker indorsed and cashed the check, then sued the decorator to recover the $2,500 balance. most courts would hold that: a the woodworker's cashing of the check constituted an accord and satisfaction, discharging the decorator's duty to pay the balance. b the woodworker can recover the $2,500 balance from the decorator. c the woodworker is estopped to sue for the balance because he cashed the check knowing that it was being tendered in full settlement. d the woodworker's indorsing a check so marked constituted a written release, thereby discharging the contract.

Fess receives wages totaling $74,500 and has net earnings from self-employment amounting to $71,300. in determining her taxable self-employment income for the oasdi tax, how much of her net self-employment earnings must fess count? a. $74,500 b. $71,300 c. $53,900 d. $127,200 e. none of the above.

What two elements normally must exist before a person can be held liable for a crime

David burdick is the ceo of acme bubblegum, a successful public company. as one of the cofounders of the company, burdick has enjoyed speaking and writing about the success of acme bubblegum for several years. typically, he speaks at conferences or directly to the press, but recently, he has been blogging about his firm anonymously. specifically, he defended a recent advertising campaign that was unpopular among consumers and pointedly attacked one of acme bubblegum’s competitors. burdick deeply enjoys his anonymous blogging and believes that none of his readers actually know that he works for acme bubblegum. should burdick be allowed to praise his company’s performance anonymously online? should he be allowed to attack his competitors without disclosing his relationship with the company? how would you feel if the ceo of a company at which you shopped was secretly writing criticisms of his or her competition? how would you feel if you knew a writer for your favorite blog was actually closely involved in a company that the blog discussed? 1. define the ethical issue? 2. who are the primary stakeholders? 3. what are the possible alternatives? 4. how could you evaluate the ethical implications of the alternative actions (use appropriate decision rules)? 5. what action would you recommend and why?