Answer:
A. can be held liable for negligence because the store has a duty to warn its customers against foreseeable risk.
Explanation:
Negligence is a breach of act or certain level of behaviour, expected to be carried out by a reasoble person normal under the normal circumstances.
For a negligence claimed to stand in the court of law,
There must be an absence of duty of care by the defendant to the plaintiff.
There must be damages, losses, injury or harms suffered in the process by the plaintiff.
Causation. It must be proven that the plaintiff suffered loss, damage or injury as a result of defendant's negligence.
Examples of negligence is a shop owner who fails to put caution sign on a wet floor, a driver who fails to observe road signs thereby causing injury to pedestrians.
Answer:
the correct answer is c. products purchased by the ultimate consumer.
Explanation:
there are two types of goods, they are, consumer goods and industrial goods.
Consumer goods are the once that are purchased by the consumers for the purpose of consumption and not to produce anything from them.
While industrial goods are mainly bought by companies and producers to produce more goods.
Answer:
Of the various business-level strategic alliances, <u>VERTICAL COMPLEMENTARY</u> alliances have the most probability of creating sustainable competitive advantage, and <u>COMPETITION REDUCING</u> have the lowest.
Explanation:
A vertical complementary alliance takes place between a manufacturer and a supplier that come together. This usually happens through a requirements contract where the supplier agrees to only sell its materials, components and parts to the manufacturer and the manufacturer agrees to only purchase the components, materials and parts needed from that specific supplier.
On the other hand, competition reducing alliances are generally horizontal alliances where companies agree to work together in order to reduce uncertainty, instead of focusing on gaining market share.
Answer:
Students believe that if the initiative does not happen, the funds for the initiative will not be spent elsewhere.
Explanation:
The visual appearance is both non rival and non excludable I.e. Pure public good
Benefit is 17*490=8.330
Benefit is greater than cost so college administrators should undertake the beautification initiative
