It's hard to tell you the answer when I'm supposed to chose one from the multiple choice, when you don't provide the multiple choices
Answer:
SUMMARY The two great Bible teachings are the law, which tells us what we should and should not do, and the gospel, which tells us what God has done for us.
Explanation:
Answer:
unethical but socially responsible.
Explanation:
Ethics is associated with conduct in the company's performance in its production and marketing process. Thus, if the company knows that there is misconduct by salespeople at work and does not take action to correct it, the company is being conniving and unethical.
Social responsibility consists of the performance of a company in actions aimed at improving the social / environmental conditions of society, but in which it has no direct connection with the company's performance. This is usually done on a voluntary basis. Thus, if this company makes charitable donations, even though it is not required to do so, it is a company concerned with society, this is characterized as social responsibility.
Answer:Exclusive Distribution
Explanation:
As the Honey Farms is making the Finest Chocolates, therefore, they will go for Exclusive Distribution to distribute their new Product.
Exclusive Distribution as the name suggests is an agreement between the manufacturer and Distributor that the manufacturer will not sell their Product to anyone else and will sell only to the exclusive distributor.
It can help the manufacturer in the following ways
- Focus: Company is more Focused as it no longer needs to worry about the distribution of products.
- Control: As the distributor is dependent on the manufacturer so the company is in complete control.
- Inventory: Exclusive distribution allows the manufacturer to store a large amount of inventory.
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
