Can someone help I don’t understand

Arthur met rottweiler breeders lynda and george at a dog show in rhode island. the couple, who reside in new york state, later sold several rottweiler dogs to arthur who lived in rhode island. arthur later sued lynda and george, claiming that the dogs were sick and infirm. he filed a complaint in rhode island courts, claiming that even though the dogs were sold in new york, the breeders had attended the dog show and advertised in the rottweiler newsletter which was distributed at the event in rhode island. based on the facts, do you think rhode island courts have personal jurisdiction in this case?

What is the rule relating the ratio of marginal utility to prices of two goods at the optimal choice? explain why, if this rule does not hold, the choice cannot be utility-maximizing.

What aspect of the roaring twenties do you think changed society