Answer:
d. perfect price discrimination.
Explanation:
According to my research on different pricing strategies, I can say that based on the information provided within the question the business owner is attempting to practice perfect price discrimination. This term refers to when a company charges different prices for each sale of the same product, usually charging the highest possible price and allowing room for negotiations. Which is exactly what Cart Vader is doing with it's golf carts.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
Answer:
Explanation:
DATE Account AccountsPayable OfficeSupplies OtherAccounts
Credited credit debit debit
Apr. 4 Officemate $620 $610 no entry
Apr. 9 Tek Village $2,460 $2,460
Apr. 16Officemate $170 $170 no entry
Apr. 19 Paper to Go $250 $250 no entry
Apr. 30 Total $3,500 $1050 $2,460
b. Total amount posted / credited to accounts payable= $( 620+2,460 + $170 + 250) = $3500
Total amount from and debited from Office supplies = $(610 + 170+ 250) = $1050
What is the April 30 balance of the Officemate Inc. creditor account assuming a zero balance on April 1?
$ __170____ ie $ 610 + 170 - 610( because invoice on April 4th was paid on April 27th.
Answer:
What Paul has done wrong is to place these marketing materials on seats. He should devised a plan to give out these materials at the registration point where participants would be registered and then they would collect the items. By placing them on the seats, some of the participants could collect more than one, especially the valuable pen that is worth $3 each.
Explanation:
Marketing materials cost the entity some funds to produce. They should not be wasted. In addition, the number of participants with some details like names and contact information should be captured for future marketing efforts. Allowing participants to have free access to the marketing materials that cost so much without driving any potential customer list is not prudent.
Answer:
The answer is: C) lose because he will not be able to prove reliance on the misrepresentation.
Explanation:
In order for Larson to be able to rescind the contract, he would have to prove that he had reasonable reliance that Robert Redford owned that specific car. Reasonable reliance refers to a person believing something to be a fact, which any other person could reasonably believe in as well.
But exactly how could he prove that someone else might also believe that the car was previously owned by Robert Redford? I find it very doubtful that he can prove that.
