Answer: innovator
Explanation:
From the question, we are informed that whenever Andrew considers upgrading his personal computer system, he normally consults with Jeremy, a knowledgeable friend who always has the newest technology.
Regarding the question, Jeremy is an innovator. An innovator is someone who has embraced new ideas and is always trying out new gadgets and technology.
Answer:
par value of the shares issued.
Explanation:
In the case when the corporation issued the capital stock with regard to the service payment so the least & appropriate basis for recording the above transaction would be the par value of the shares issued as it would leads to the excess payment
Therefore according to the given situation the last option is right
Below are the complete options:
changing beliefs about the extent to which a brand has certain attributes
encouraging the consumer to use stimulus generalization
adding new attributes to the product
encouraging the consumer to use stimulus discrimination
changing the importance of attributes
Answer:
changing the importance of attributes
Explanation:
Freshness dates shows for how long a drink can be considered to not have expired. For example Pepsi can be considered to give freshness from 6-9 months after the date printed on the bottle.
Pepsi spent about $25 million on advertising and promotion related to freshness dates. Initially freshness dates were only seen as important by a few people.
This resulted in 61 percent of cola drinkers now thinking it is important.
This exemplifies how importance of a product's attribute can be changed
Answer:
c. liable on the ground that Mesa is an intended third-party beneficiary
Explanation:
In a contract, the third-party beneficiary is a business or a person that benefits from the agreement and the terms of the contract that is made between the two other parties. According to law, third-party beneficiary have certain rights which they can enforced if the contract is not fulfilled.
In the context, Mesa is a third party beneficiary. The Mesa County enters into a contract with New Construct Inc. to construct a court house. Now New Construct Inc. again hires the firm Odell to excavate the land site.
While excavating Odell damages few nearby properties, so Mesa County files a law suit against Odell. But Odell argues that Odell is not in agreement with Mesa County or have not entered into with any contract with the County, so Mesa cannot sue the excavator.
But the court hold that as Mesa County is the third party beneficiary of the contract and have certain rights, Odell is held liable for the loss and should compensate for the loss to the County.