In the context of electronic communication, <u>passive incivility</u> involves indirect form of disrespect.
Passive incivility involves indirect forms of disrespect through the context of electronic communication which are not replying to emails, using emails for time-sensitive messages, not acknowledging receipt of emails.
Passive incivility has its own impact in an individuals life. As this incivility is indirect there is not much behavior noticed. Thus, here the factor of ignorance plays an important role. For instance, when a person sends a disrespectful email, and so here it is hard to understand tone via email and you can’t see the person's body language.
Hence, passive incivility involves indirect form of disrespect.
To learn more about incivility here:
brainly.com/question/13939392
#SPJ4
I would say FHA, from what I know.
Answer:
3.6
Explanation:
The receivables turnover for the year is calculated as;
= Net sales(credit sales) ÷ Average accounts receivables
Average account receivables
= ($200,000 + $220,000) ÷ 2
= $210,000
Therefore, Receivables turnover
= $750,000 ÷ $210,000
= 3.6
Answer:
The correct answer is letter "D": does not require estimates of bad debt losses.
Explanation:
There are mainly two approaches while recognizing bad debts (unpaid debts): <em>the allowance method </em>and <em>the direct write-off method</em>. Using the allowance method the unpaid account receivable goes through a series of stages until it is recognized as a bad debt. There are no set criteria to do so. When the firm eventually recognizes and calculates the amount of a bad expense, it is recorded in an allowance account. The negative balance diminishes the company's revenue.
The direct write-off method does not generate any allowance account. The account receivable is simply written-off after the company determines the debt as uncollectible. Thus, there is no need to estimate bad debt losses using this approach.
Answer:
The correct answer is the option A: unconscionable
Explanation:
To begin with, the reason why such prohibition from Marco to Fred is unconscionable is due to the fact that Marco already stated in a private contract that he agreed to sell the apartment to Fred by a certain price, therefore establishing that the property of the real estate now belongs to the other party, letting everyone else external to the contract know that the proper and new owner is Fred.
Secondly, it is understandable that now that Fred is the new owner of the apartment by contract then it is unfair and unreasonable that the old owner Marco prohibits him to do what he wants with the apartment.
