Unlimited liability means the business is responsible for the majority of debt it incurs, and filing bankruptcy is out of the question the business is responsible for the debt it incurs. if the business cannot pay its bills, the debt burden transfers to the owner(s), and he/she/they are liable for all debt the business is responsible for the debt. if the business cannot pay, the company files bankruptcy. the debt does not fall on the shoulders of individual owners. they are safe from liability that all forms of business are responsible for all the debts a business incurs in its everyday operations

Afreelance​ singer-songwriter is planning the restoration of a recently purchased civil​ war-era farmhouse. while he professes an enjoyment​ of, and talent in the construction​ trades, the theory of comparative advantage implies that a. the value of what he imports​ (in this​ case, professional contractor​ services) must equal the value of what he exports​ (songs). b. he should concentrate on the restoration work since his​ out-of-pocket costs will be much lower than if he hires professionals. c. ​self-sufficiency is​ advantageous, hence he should split his time between music and construction. d. the income lost while away from music will likely exceed the savings realized by doing the work​ himself, thus, he should hire professionals to do the restoration work. e. he ought to do as much of the work himself as possible since imports​ (in this​ case, professional contractor​ services) should always be restricted to those things that cannot be done internall

Kis the insured and p is the sole beneficiary on a life insurance policy. both are involved in a fatal accident where k dies before p. under the common disaster provision, which of these statements is true?

In december of 2004, the company you own entered into a 20-year contract with a grain supplier for daily deliveries of grain to its hot dog bun manufacturing facility. the contract called for "10,000 pounds of grain" to be delivered to the facility at the price of $100,000 per day. until february 2017, the supplier provided processed grain which could easily be used in your manufacturing process. however, no longer wanting to absorb the cost of having the grain processed, the supplier began delivering whole grain. the supplier is arguing that the contract does not specify the type of grain that would be supplied and that it has not breached the contract. your company is arguing that the supplier has an onsite processing plant and processed grain was implicit to the terms of the contract. over the remaining term of the contract, reshipping and having the grain processed would cost your company approximately $10,000,000, opposed to a cost of around $1,000,000 to the supplier. after speaking with in-house counsel, it was estimated that litigation would cost the company several million dollars and last for years. weighing the costs of litigation, along with possible ambiguity in the contract, what are three options you could take to resolve the dispute? which would be the best option for your business and why?