Answer:
E
Explanation:
has no interest in whether the euro grows stronger or weaker versus the Brazilian real unless its chief competitors are other companies located in countries whose currency is also the euro.
Answer:
A) TRUE
Explanation:
Updating marketing skills is not unrelated to modern demands in a global environment influenced by technological disruption. The need to keep abreast of changes in digital marketing for instance is essential if you have to stay relevant in the world of marketing.
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question we can say that Yes, the dealership is contractually bound to sell Mike the car at that price. This is assuming that the ad handed to the dealership by Mike is an actual ad that was designed and published by the dealership. If this is the case the dealership must uphold their price or it will be considered false advertisement and Mike would have a basis on which to sue the business.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
Answer:
Jill cannot hold the manufacturer responsible for her injury.
Explanation:
The above question is incomplete as there are several answer options which are listed below;
• Jill can hold the manufacturer liable for her injury as long as Lexi was in the room when she got
• Jill can hold the manufacturer liable for her injury
• Jill cannot hold the manufacturer responsible for her injury
• Lexi can hold the manufacturer liable for Jill's injury.
The above answer - Jill cannot hold the manufacturer responsible for her injury, is true according to the rule of privity of contract. The rule states that a person who is not a party to a contract does not have right to sue or be sued and to enforce the obligations arising from the contract, unlike a person who is a party to the contract.
With regards to the above scenario, Lexi, who buys a food processor is the party to the contract here, hence can sue and be sued in case of any injury suffered by her, however, Jill whom food processor was loaned to, is the third party here, hence not covered by the rule of privity of contract.
