Acknowledgement Of Liability And Agreement To Pay: Fill & Download for Free

I don't read the terms word-for-word.I usually pay some attention to the rights that I am granted and restrictions on use of the software, and I am curious to know which jurisdiction and choice of law the agreement specifies.Most other provisions (disclaimers of warranties, limitations of liabilities and damages, etc.) are boilerplate to which I give a nodding acknowledgement as I scroll by.

I am a senior partner at a big 4 and have worked in partnerships at senior levels all over the world, so I am qualified to answer this directly.The answer to this questions is made complex by law and geography. Partnership is a form of legal entity. Unlike a “Limited Liability” company, where the company is treated in law as a person in its own right, and you sue the company, not the company directors. In a “Partnership”, this liability separation does not exists, and all partners are legally are severably liable. This really means you don’t sue the “company” you sue the partners in a partnership. So a partner, is like a company director, however there is typically more of them in a business. It is worth pointing out that some countries do not acknowledge the legal entity of a partnership. Where this is the case the partners are usually “Executive Directors”, meaning they can legally bind the company to contracts by signing.Partners are not employees, and as such rarely enjoy the benefits of protection that exists in many countries to protect employees. (Forget redundancy or unfair dismissal protection for instance.)But the upside for partners is that they share the profits of the firm. (In some countries, in some firms, they have “salaried” partners, which take an agreed salary rather than sharing the profits). In many respects, you can think of Partners like franchise owners. They own a little bit of a big company, and enter into an agreement to operate under than brand, under a set of conditions. Each is the boss of his or her own part of the business.Apologies, however Praveen is incorrect in many of his statements. Firstly, partners are generally NOT employees. Also, you don’t always need to invest a fraction of your salary, however for an equity partner, there is always an equity stake involved, which is usually in the form of a loan facility arranged by the firm, but not always. Partners DO pay tax. They may have different taxable regimes than employees, but in most places in the world. you have to pay tax on taxable income - simple as that. A partnership model can make Taxation very attractive in a number of ways, however this is country dependant.The earnings vary (as they are dependant on sharing the profit), but are generally extremely generous, but of course is linked to the risk you carry as a partner; remember that bit about being equally liable? The Audit profession is inherently risky, and as such being a partner of the big 4 (all of which have Audit services) leaves you exposed to the mistakes of other partners. So it’s the old risk reward scenario. However like most things, all partners are not created equal, and so will not earn the same.Mehul may be speaking on behalf of Indian firms,or may be mistaken (I have worked only briefly in Banglore on a project and dont know the structures well). Principles in the US are generally equivalent to “salaried parters”, which exist in some countries. CPA is nothing to do with being a partner.Hope this helps…

The SNP give me the feeling that Scotland is very economically viable. Is Scotland financially successful? How will its economics effect its eligibility to be part of the EU?I oppose Scottish Independence, and I freely acknowledge that an Independent Scotland would be a totally economically viable country.Scotland, depending on how you count oil and gas taxes, is running a budget deficit of about 9%. The exact numbers don’t matter, and are a matter of some dispute, but they’re high. What they may have been in 1987 or might be in 2035 doesn’t matter- what matters is now, . The current deficit is around 9%, and that is paid for by transfer payments from the rest of the UK.If an Independent Scotland leaves the UK in an orderly fashion, with a fair division of UK wide assets and liabilities, it will be treated as a small European nation that wishes to join the EU.To join the EU, it must meet all accession criteria. One major one is a budget deficit of no more than 3%- a criteria of Euro membership and all new members must join the Euro. That means either taxes have to go up substantially, or spending must go down substantially. It will have to demonstrate it can manage the (new) currency and budget for a few years before it will be eligible to join the EU.Hitting those EU accession criteria will make the 2010–15 coalition constraints on spending look like the land of milk and honey. It is perfectly possible, but it will be like watching the Highland sunset from your tent in midge season- beautiful, romantic but unbelievably painful.Once in the EU, Scotland would be a net EU contributor- probably more per person than now as the loss of the UK rebate would more than outweigh the slightly lower per head contributions Scotland would make on it’s own. Once again, perfectly viable, if people are willing to pay the price.If it crashes out with no agreement, and refusing to take on a proportional share of National debt, it will be treated as a financial pariah, and will make life much more difficult for itself in many ways at once. I’m going to ignore this option as it would be incredibly stupid.EDIT: Due to an influx of comments based on ‘alternative facts’ that would make even Donald Trump embarrassed, I will simply be deleting comments based on assertions that are not even somewhat true, not trying to debate with people who will not listen.