Answer: Option B
Explanation: In simple words, acceptance speech refers to the speech that is made by an individual generally after receiving award or similar honor as such.
In such a speech the receiving party shows gratitude and tries to connect with their audience by showing sentiments and proud of receiving the award. These speeches are usually very brief and to the point but sometimes an extension is made by the deceiving party, stating some past events or making motivational statements to the audience.
In the given case, Carlos revived the award and thanked the school authority. Hence from the above we can conclude that the correct option is B.
Answer:
vfgfbgn hmvbncg bvc bnvcb nbvbv
Explanation:
Answer:
When we examine the arrays of the Homeland (a Developed country) as well as the Hosting, a Developing country we should anticipate formal institutional reasons to differ, but Casual institutional aspects to dominate.
This is due to the fact that formal institutions are governed by the governments which have different level of financing available in different countries.
Answer:
Rose Marie received $152 in earned income and $25 in transfer payments.
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that in this scenario Rose Marie received $152 in earned income and $25 in transfer payments. The $152 from her "side hustle" is basically from a service that she provided, which she worked (earned) for. Since the other payment was given to her from her grandmother, it is said to have transferred ownership, thus it is a transfer payment.
Answer:
That the car wash was not liable to the plaintiff because the car wash employees had no notice they were taking responsibility for so much jewelry.
Explanation:
The case of Ziva Jewelry Inc., v. Car Wash Headquarters Inc involved a salesperson Stewart who locked jewellery in his car and took it to the car wash.
He did not disclose that there was expensive jewelry in the car.
The attendant finished washing the car and signalled to Stewart that his car was ready and walked away from the car.
Before Stewart could pay the bill someone had taken the car. Although the police recovered the car the jewellery was stolen.
Zeva Jewellry filed a motion against the car wash that they did not excercise due care in returning the vehicle.
In this instance the car wash was not liable because Stewart did not disclose there was expensive jewelry in the car.
Also the attendant had finished with his car and informed him of this. So it was out of their care when the car theft occured
