What exactly is the question here? Id help out
Director, National security agency chief, central security service DIRNSA/CHCSS provides CI functional services and analysis in support of international arms control agreements.
<h3>What does Director, National security agency chief, central security service DIRNSA/CHCSS do?</h3>
The highest senior member of the National Security Agency, a defense organization under the Department of Defense of the United States, is the director (DIRNSA). The chief of the Central Security Service (CHCSS) and commander of U.S. Cyber Command are both simultaneously held by the NSA director (USCYBERCOM). The officeholder reports to the under secretary of defense for intelligence as the director of the NSA and as the head of the CSC, and as the commander of U.S. Cyber Command, directly to the secretary of defense.
To learn more about NSA visit:
brainly.com/question/14611914
#SPJ4
Answer:
Ending inventory= $916.2
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Nov. 1 Inventory: 35 units $7.10 each
Nov. 8 Purchase: 142 units $7.60 each
Nov. 17 Purchase: 71 units $7.45 each
Nov. 25 Purchase: 106 units $7.80 each
Nov. 30 ending inventory: 118 units on hand. FIFO (first-in, first-out)
Ending inventory= 106*7.8+12*7.45= $916.2
Answer: d) whether LIRR is liable under negligence to Mrs. Palsgraf.
Explanation:
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. was a very famous case in American tort law from 1928 which deals with the issue of being liable to an unforeseen Plaintiff.
In the case, Helen Palsgraf and her daughter were at the Long Island Railroad Co. (LIRR) station platform waiting to board a train to go to the beach when two men were being assisted to enter the train by Employees of LIRR. Whilst this was happening one of the men dropped a product that detonated. This hit her and she began to stammer. She sued the railroad and won in two courts until she got to the New York Court of Appeals where she lost the case as the Judge did not believe the Issue was right.
The Issue was whether LIRR owed her a duty of care even if they could not have known that she could be harmed from helping the men.
Answer: C.) a breach
Explanation: The scenario described above, highlights a breach on the path of VMC, a breach in a legal context refers to the failure to comply or observe certain guiding principle. In contract terms, a breach is a violation of contract terms. Once talk talk has offered to buy from VMC, the order made available and to talk talk Inc. by VMC should meet the standard specification requested in Talk talk's order. Any violation of these specification without notifying talk talk will be considered a breach.
