Answer:
<em>Through a process called </em><em><u>environmental</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>scanning</u></em><em> marketers collect and evaluate information about the marketing environment.</em>
<em>What</em><em> is</em><em> </em><em>environmental</em><em> </em><em>scanning</em><em>?</em>
<em>Environmental</em><em> </em><em>scanning</em><em> </em><em>is </em><em>the </em><em>process</em><em> </em><em>of </em><em>continually</em><em> </em><em>acqu</em><em>i</em><em>ring </em><em>information</em><em> </em><em>on </em><em>events </em><em>occurring</em><em> </em><em>outs</em>ide<em> </em><em>the </em><em>organization</em><em> </em><em>to </em><em>identify</em><em> </em><em>and </em><em>interpret </em><em>potential</em><em> </em><em>trends.</em><em> </em>
Answer: $4,800
Explanation:
First find the Annual holding cost:
= Average inventory * Cost of holding a unit
= 500/2 * 1 * 12 months
= $3,000
Then find the Annual ordering cost:
= Expected units to be sold/ Units ordered * Ordering cost
= 9,000/500 * 100
= $1,800
Annual Inventory cost = Annual holding cost + Annual ordering cost
= 3,000 + 1,800
= $4,800
Answer: The secondary source on a topic may be biased because the information is translated and the text and information could be altered
Explanation:
Answer:
Police Power
Explanation:
According to my research on different government powers, I can say that based on the information provided within the question this is the definition of Police Power. Like mentioned in the question this is the ability that states have to regulate it's citizens behaviors and maintain order, for the health, safety, and general welfare of those citizens.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
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.
