Answer: modified rebuy
Explanation:
Tetradic's situation can be defined as the modified rebuy. Modified Rebuy refers to a purchasing situation whereby an individual or organization buys goods that they've bought before but then changes the supplier or some elements in the previous order.
Based on the question given, Tetradic Solutions alters his purchase as the order was modified. In modified rebuy, the specifications of the product, prices, and suppliers can be changed as well.
Answer:
The statement is: False.
Explanation:
In supply chain management, incremental analysis is in charge of determining the cost of ordering one more additional unit of a product over the cost of no requesting that additional unit. The cost of overstimulating demand is the loss of ordering one additional unit and discovering that it cannot be sold. The cost of underestimating demand is the opportunity loss for nor requesting one additional and discovering it could have been sold.
<em>The cost of underestimating demand is more difficult to determine than the cost of overestimating demand because underestimating demand because it involves customer's desires</em> on purchasing a product when not having the resources to do so.
Answer:
E. Ursula is likely to prevail because an enforceable unilateral contract exists based on her provision of information leading to the capture of Victor.
Explanation:
A unilateral contract is in existence because safe bank has made an offer to pay $10,000. And in a unilateral contract when an offerer like safe bank makes an offer, the offer is accepted through actual performance which Ted has done through information Ursula provided. Therefore Ursula would prevail because unilateral contracts are enforceable by the law.
Answer:
The correct answer is: Assumption of the risk.
Explanation:
If the risk inherent in a particular action that caused an injury is knowingly and voluntarily assumed, you cannot sue anyone to recover the damages. Suppose, for example, a situation in which he went to a friend's house and was warned about the use of the back door because the floor cover was seriously damaged and would not support a person's weight on it. If you have decided to ignore the warning and use the back door, the doctrine of risk taking will probably prevent the recovery of injuries sustained by a fall on that floor. The court will decide that you "assumed the risk" of such injury.