In Waddell v. Rustin, Waddell was not declared an implied partner despite her testimony that she and her romantic partner ran their business as partners, including her involvement in management and oversight of business projects, access to company checkbook, payment of company bills, and assistance in choosing construction projects. a. True
b. False

a. True

Explanation:

In the case of Waddell v. Rustin, Waddell met and got into a romantic relationship with Rustin in 1999 and Waddell claimed to have helped Rustin out in the business alot by having oversight of business projects, having access to the company checkbook, paying company bills, and assisting in choosing construction projects.

She claimed that for this reason she was entitled to a share of the profits as the relationship had been dissolved.

In a judgement by the Trial Court which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, the court held in favor of Rustin and said that no Implied Partnership was formed because Rustin was already an experienced builder for years before they met and Waddell had none so the business being viable was more because of Rustin than her. The Court maintained that she would have to give more convincing evidence in order to convince them otherwise.

lots of credit card rewards

hi : ) i found this so i hope this !

"we first find value of tax in dollars.

the difference between the two prices   is: 23. 54 - 22 = 1.54

therefore the sales tax in dollars is 1.54

the tax % will be   (amount of tax / original cost price ) × 100

(1.54 / 22) × 100  → (0.07) × 100 =   7

so the tax rate is 7%

we can double check the answer.

7 % of 22   → (7/100) × 22 → 0.07 × 22 = 1.54

22 + 1.54 = 23.54"