Amy, a baker, has found her dream home, but cannot afford the down payment. Amy’s brother agrees to loan her $3000 for the down payment, and Amy agrees to pay him back in one year. Next year, Amy offers to bake her brother’s wedding cake for his wedding next month instead of paying back the loan, so that she can buy new equipment for her bakery. Amy’s brother agrees and accepts the cake. How much money does Amy now owe her brother? $3000, because agreements to accept less than full payment of liquidated debt are non-binding. $3000 less the cost of the wedding cake, because agreements to accept less than full payment of liquidated debt are non-binding. $0 because an agreement to accept different performance in lieu of full payment of liquidated debt is binding. $3000.

$0 because an agreement to accept different performance in lieu of full payment of liquidated debt is binding.

Explanation:

Since there is an agreement between Amy, a baker, and her brother, she owes him $0.

At first, Amy gets a loan of $3,000 from her brother to pay for her dream home. She agrees to pay him back in one year, and that agreement was binding. During the time to pay back the loan, Amy offers to bake her brother's wedding cake instead of paying back the loan and her brother accepts. This has presented a new agreement that overrules the previous agreement. Now instead of paying back the $3,000, she would bake a wedding cake for him. This implies that the wedding cake is equal to $3,000.

Therefore, she owes him $0.

read this passage from the crisis. what rationale is paine using for going to war with great britain? my own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. not all the treasures of the world, so far as i believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for i think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am i to suffer it? what signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? if we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other.

it is waged war against an army of countrymen

it would lead to independence from britain

it would be an offensive war

it would be a defensive war