Answer:
Awareness. consumers are informed of the new product availability.
Interest. consumers show interest by acquiring more information about the new product.
Evaluation. consumers conduct cost-benefit analysis of trying new product.
Trial.
Adoption.
Confirmation.
Explanation:
i don't know if im right...
True. According to a 2018 CareerBuilder survey, 70% of employers use social media to screen candidates during the hiring process, and about 43% of employers use social media to check on current employees.
Answer:
an applicable Good Samaritan statute.
Explanation:
Good Samaritan law protects those that act to help someone the perceive to be injured, ill, in peril, or incapacitated.
This law was put in place to protect bystanders that want to help a person that is injured. They will not be held liable in case of wrongful death or unintentional injury.
So the suit against Elise for negligence by the Forest Trail Marathon participant is not enforceable as she is immune from liability under the good samaritan statute.
Answer:
From a buyer's perspective, a sale made on credit represents a liability. While a sale made on cash represents a decrease of current assets.
From a seller's perspective, a sale made on credit or cash increases current assets, but the possibility of a bad debt always exist, therefore, accounts receivables must be periodically adjusted due to bad debts.
If the seller or buyer uses accrual accounting system, the previous description holds, but if they use cash basis accounting, things change a lot. When use cash basis, transactions are recorded only when cash is exchanged, so accounts receivables do not actually increase assets (seller's perspective), and accounts payables do not increase liabilities (buyer's perspective).
Answer: The correct answer is YES it is admissible as evidence of the plumber's fault.
Explanation: An Evidence has probative value if it tends to prove an issue. The testimony of the homeowner of the regarding the plumber's response is a party admission. It is admissible as a hearsay exemption under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) which explains that a statement or statemens made by a party in a case cannot be excluded as hearsay when offered against him by the opponent. As such, the statement is a probative evidence.
