Answer appropriately
Which type of organization are Xerox and IBM good examples of? ( 1) firms specializing in lease financing ( 2) firms using only leases for asset financing 3) manufacturers of items that are financed exclusively by firms specializing in lease financing O 4) manufacturers providing lease financing as part of their regular sales efforte Page(s) 598-599 19.1. How is macroeconomics different from microeconomics? lassify each concept as microeconomic or macroeconomic. The hiring decisions of a company Microeconomic The financial decisions of a family Microeconomic Microeconomic Macroeconomic The median income of a small state Macroeconomic Nice job! You earned back 10 points. + The unemployment rate of a nation Examining the unemployment rate for a whole nation is a broad, macroeconomic Macroeconomic topic. Macroeconomics helps explain the behavior ofW WordDoutter - Count ward : | G hegoofhitions - Coughs : |0 Assignment db Paper C) Chopp: The Lom of Henkho C "ereader.chegg convW/bockw/978156783879cf /3/241/4/2/403 72/280-0 pootnoted dack thinking there would be a separate opention additiond vertebrae had is be fined. She aacres the fact four worebone wow fined combined with delendors ourraves and failing to won herof specific there my mention how that the would not have prisonted in the surgery bad the kross those things the bys spit withheld fran her prior is wingery. Defendant testified plainhill win fully iadvised as to the nature of her problem and the scope of directive margery. He acknowledges he did not advise ber of the bund of vocal chord fair/ paralysis. He believed the possibility of sch occurpiece was negligible and outweighed by the danger of undue apprehension if waming of the risk was ghom. one type of treatment and subicgundy performers wahannually different Unamail for which coment was not obtained, there is acker oak of battery. However, when in indisked potential complication meals, the occurence of which was not an integral part of the treatment procedure hal merely a known risk, the courts are divided in the have of whether this should be deemed ta be a billmy er negligence. We myfree with the majorly tread The beating diary hand het parend for three chuandenies slow a dork performs as spcation in which the patval has nd camental, When the parra gives penmasuis in porlien one type of breadmeat and the docks performs water, the requisite clenon of deliberate incol to deviate from the oument given is porsen. However, when the pitiful coments to certain treatment and the bacter perform that beatment but in walicloned inherent complication with a low proffifty occur no intentiond deviation from the consol given appoint rather, the doctor in ofdining coined may have failed to mori his duc ciuc duty A odiskne pertinent information. In that shustios the action should be planted in negligence. From air approval of this malyis it should be eleve we believe the battery or trespass theiry plealed by plein ' in this case is Emited inhis applicahiity to surgery to which the patient hes not conicnied. There mud be a fission was a ballery is bespies. But the dogs ool claim dienins for a recoul fusion. bat asks damari became of injury In the laryngeal nene during surgery. The cubeence is undisputed that whether one on the fuckisu wire to be done the path to the said column had to be claimed by retraction of the visual shlomi. Hence, any injury caused by wach ortraction occurred during a procedure to which consent had been given. Reaction of the visceral ochma during the surgery was not a batery of brespin. We have no owessun to reach de question whether failure to advise plaintiff of the the of laryngeal nerve injury would is be circumdrives of din ous have proced a Jury have on meclipse, but we to poli on hand recovery on wich isaid in preclude unless a plaintiff also colddishes he would not have whiritied to the provedan if he had been wuvbed of the risk, ... There is no evidence planif would have wifiheld her consent in thes Altimed. I . lies fee care been then? Does it need to bat 2. What is the "woooal foundaim fact," and how does "canmin caperince" miller in relation to in 3. The opinion sines "There men be a subsuial differcare between the surgery copied in and the sugery which is done for a battery case to be rude]." What would amount to a "suleimuial differtive"in your mmill What if decal career hal been divinened and clainly removed with no aftereffects? Would that procure be a sbanned dillennce andifying damages le bowker com though to cher inun tial, in foul. 4. Why did the cart have mo action" to dride whether failure to added the plaisulf of the rock of aers injury rabed s negligence isa Notes 1. 61 AM. JUR. 2d. Physicians and Surgeons $ 208 (1981), Baldor v. Hopon, 81 80. 24658 (Fla. 1954), reb's denied, BI So. 20 661 01 1a. 1935); ANGELA R. HOLDER, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAW 47 (2d ed, 1978). DeFilippo v. Preston, 53 Del. 539, 173 A.24 333 (1961). 4. Miller w. Toles, 183 Mich, 252, 150 N.W. 118 (1914). 173 Aa 40
