Answer:
is this a essay question beacuse dont do those
Explanation:
Answer:
b. the implied warranty of merchantability
Explanation:
Implied warranty of merchantability refers to an implied assurance, in every sales transaction that the seller's goods are safe and fit for intended purpose of usage.
It represents an unspoken guarantee on the part of the seller that his goods conform to the acceptable standards and properly packaged and labeled and abide by the promises conveyed on their label.
The motive behind such a warranty being, the seller must properly inspect and test the quality of his goods before releasing them or making them available for sale in the market.
In the given case, the seller sold skis to the customer which cracked into two upon usage. The seller isn't aware of the cause of the consequence. Thus, the seller breached the principle of implied warranty of merchantabilty as per which, it should've first checked and inspected the skis before making them available for sale.
Given the scenario, Sally's employer is still responsible for these reasons:
<em> A. Yes, because this type of incident falls under the OSH Act's General Duty Clause,
</em>
<em />
<em>B. Yes, because Larry did not follow safe work practices by rushing down the hall with the cart.</em>
The responsibility of Sally's employer does not end because the accident is not specifically addressed in the OSHA standards.
At least, the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act requires employers to provide safe work environments free from recognized present or future hazards.
Thus, Larry's action is a recognized hazard that could have been prevented from happening if wider hallways are built, for example.
Read more about Employer and Employee OSHA Responsibilities at brainly.com/question/20427532
Answer:
D. the four largest firms produce at least 70–80 percent of the output.
Explanation: