Answer:
The broker should respond that the Specialist (DMM) on the NYSE flooris obligated to buy the stock at the current market.
Explanation:
Now under the NYSE rules, to make a nonstop market in the assigned stock. A customer is will always be guaranteed that the trade will be executed - on the other hand, the price at which the trade is effected is constantly subject to various market conditions.
So the best response from the broker is that the Specialist (DMM) on the NYSE floors is required to buy the stock at the current market.
She made a snide remark means she's looking to her colleague in a negative or insulting way. If her action is can be compared with how he looks at the customer like henry ford probably did.
Henry Ford is a well-known businessman. What Layla tried to show is that she collogue should treat well their customer because of the source of their money or company's income.
<span>It is associated with using a market penetration strategy when there is an opportunity for price skimming. Leaving money on the table means that during a business deal or negotiation one of the parties does not receive the amount of money they could have earned, instead they accept a smaller sum. This strategy can be beneficial or hurtful depending on the scenario.</span>
Answer: They have no internal power supply.
Explanation: Passive radio frequency identification tags are tags that do not posses batteries in them but posses a little antenna or sensor which is triggered ON when it is brought close to a reader.
the passive RFID tags work only for short distance and have the ability to last many years. The RFID tags sends out the stored information in it to the reader when the radio waves from the reader activates it.
Answer:
The answer is "Whenever a court requires him to use the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, he possibly would succeed".
Explanation:
Res ipsa loquitur is also an English common law doctrine which claims in an action for tort, throughout the absence of direct proof on whether any defendant acted, a jury may conclude neglect of the nature of an illness or incident. It is used in circumstances in which the complainant is not presented sufficient proof that the offender is not liable.
