Answer:
secondary data.
Explanation:
Market research can be defined as a strategic technique which typically involves the process of identifying, acquiring and analyzing informations about a business. It involves the use of product test, surveys, questionnaire, focus groups, interviews, etc.
Secondary market research can be defined as a method designed to determine the demographics of a particular target market.
A secondary data can be defined as any form of data that has been obtained or collected earlier by someone else through primary sources for their own purpose and made readily available for other researchers to use. Thus, a secondary data is a type of data that has been previously obtained or collected.
In this scenario, the type of information the marketing team was using is referred to as secondary data because it looked to the Internet to find industry trends and at the market for eyewear products, which uses the same technology that is used in manufacturing its self-darkening windshield.
In conclusion, a secondary data is typically reliant or based on the primary source of information and as such it isn't a first hand experience.
Answer: C) Without an anonymous reporting system, the company does not meet the minimum requirements for the protections of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Explanation:
Based on the information given, it should be noted that since there's no anonymous reporting system, the minimum requirements for the protections of Federal Sentencing Guidelines isn't met by the company.
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines simply refers to the rules that with regards to the uniform policy through which the individuals and the organizations that have been convicted of felonies and every other misdemeanors are set up. In this case, the requirements hasn't been met since there is no anonymous reporting system.
Answer:
assets on the balance sheet.
Explanation:
Reserves are percentages of deposits that are required for depository institutions to keep to meet unforeseen contingency. they are usually kept in bank vaults
they are assets and they cannot be lent out
Answer:
Recognize an income/loan repayment of $1,300, and cancel the debt of $200 from the earlier recognition of income
Explanation:
Swan would only recognize an income/loan repayment of $1,300 having already recognized an initial income of $200 of the $1,500 owed before the death of the customer.
Accounting entries would be as follows.
Debit Bank account: $1,500
Credit income/loan repayment account: :1,300
Credit receivables: $200.
The credit of $200 in receivables would be treated as shown above due to the income of $200 already recognised and which would have been treated as follows when it was recognized,
Dr: receivables $200
Cr. interest earned $200,
Answer:
This was an actual court case that ended in the Court of Appeals of the First District of California. Initially a lower court had ruled against the Sharabianlous and set extremely high compensations for damages to Berenstein. I do not understand why the court did it since it was proven that the land was contaminated and couldn't be sold under unless cleaned.
Finally, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the Sharabianlous, not because they thought they were right, but due to errors in the original trial.
The big issue in this case was that the contract signed by the Sharabianlous wasn't clear enough about what would happen if the land was not suitable for sale and they also failed to seek a lawyer when the contamination issues became obvious. If you read the case, even the real estate broker acted against the Sharabianlous when the property was appraised since he didn't tell the appraiser about the contamination issues.
The final ruling was made in 2010, 8 years after the parties engaged in the transaction, which gives us an idea of how complicated things can get when legal procedures are not followed, even though the outcome should be obvious.
If I was part of a jury and the case was about property that couldn't be sold due to contamination, I would probably vote in favor of the buyer, not the seller. It's common sense, but sometimes it you do not follow the appropriate legal path, common sense makes no sense at all.
