Why would a firm require that its employees not divulge whether ...

[tth]

Why would a firm require that its employees not divulge whether it has kidnapping and ransom insurance policies?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

How can it be argued that the inclusion of a liquidated damages provision for late completion of a project simplifies matters for the contracting parties?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[mmpiza]

Answer to Question 1

Firms require their employees to not divulge whether the firm has kidnapping and ransom insurance policies because it could expose their employees to the potential for being kidnapped for ransom if the kidnappers are aware that the firm has insurance that would pay for the ransom of their employees. Public disclosure of kidnapping and ransom insurance policy typically voids the insurance policy (Insurance Day, September 2, 2004).

Answer to Question 2

Failure to complete a project within the contractually agreed construction
duration constitutes a breach of the contract. Where a breach of contract exists, the
contract viability itself comes into question. A breach of contract generally obligates one
party (the breaching party) to pay damages to the other. Assessing the amount of
damages is difficult. The inclusion of liquidated damages provisions in contracts
stipulates the damages that are to be paid for the late completion of a project. Thus, the
project construction effort can continue and the compensation due the owner for late
completion is not an issue, the amounts due having been established in the contract.

[tth]

Both answers were spot on, thank you once again

[mmpiza]

Great! Please up vote