Answer:
The president of Riggs has missed something.
She should make the Sail instead of buying because its cheaper to manufacture than purchasing it outside.
Explanation:
<u>Cost of Manufacturing the Sails:</u>
Direct materials $93
Direct Labor $83
Total $173
The president of Riggs has included the $90 overhead based on $78,000 of annual fixed overhead that is allocated using normal capacity in the cost of manufacturing the sail which is incorrect.
Riggs Company is operating at 80 % of full capacity, hence utelizing the 20% excess capacity would not expand its fixed costs.
Thus said the current fixed cost are irrelevent for this decison and would be incurred whether or not Riggs Company utilizes the excess capacity
<u>Conclusion:</u>
The cost of making the sail is $173 which is lower than the cost of buying them at $ 258.
I would advise The president of Riggs to make the sail by utilizing the excess capacity since its cheaper than purchasing it outside.
Answer:
Marketing and distribution of a variety of products
Explanation:
Marketing refers to a business function whereby a marketer advertises and promotes goods and services with an objective to increase sales and at the same time ensure customer satisfaction. Marketing mix refers to essential marketing components for effective marketing.
Marketing mix comprises of product, place, price and promotion.
Distribution refers to activities which are aimed at making products available in the right markets at the right time and utilizes various channels of distributions such as retailers, wholesalers, intermediaries, etc.
In the given case, Starbucks, the renowned coffee maker, has formed alliances or collaborations so as to extend and strengthen their business. These strategic alliances help Starbucks create an effective distribution network and wide-reach marketing which subsequently helps in efficient operations and profitability.
The term BUSINESS CYCLE is a popular way to describe the rescission-expansion pattern followed by the economy.
Answer:
both Gladys and Phil
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that in this scenario both Gladys and Phil are guilty of violating the Fair Housing Law. The Fair Housing law completely outlaws the refusal to sell a house or property to someone on the basis of race, color, disability, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. Which is exactly why Gladys and Phil removed the property and did not want to sell to the minority couple.
One thing that may be a component is that it isn't as simple to get new Mastercards as it once might have been. Charge card organizations are likewise not naturally expanding limits. Truth be told, in the course of recent years, many cards have drasticallly cut existing client limits.
