Answer:
D: Loss leading
Explanation:
Loss leading or the loss leaders is the concept where we decree the price of certain well known and popular products to such a level that customers are amazed. We even start selling that product below its cost as well. The basic logic behind loss leaders is to increase the store traffic and therefore increasing the sales. For example, if everyone is selling eggs at $2 per dozen, and you get it at $1.5 from the whole seller then you can either sell it at the same amount on which you purchasing it from the whole seller, at $1.5 or even below than this at £1.3. People knows that eggs are usually sols at $1.5 but your concept of loss leading will attract them towards your store, and besides purchasing eggs at $1.3, they will also but many other high profit margins products as well.
Answer:
The answer is: A) $0
Explanation:
I am assuming Stuart's stock is part of his retirement account. If this is true, then the stock dividends and stock splits are not taxed as they are earned (but they will be taxed later when Stuart starts receiving his distributions).
If Stuart's stock was not part of his retirement account, then he would have to pay taxes (usually a 15% tax rate applies).
Answer:
False
Explanation:
An increase in the demand for notebooks raises the quantity of notebooks demanded and also the quantity supplied
An increase in demand leads to a corresponding increase in supply
If the supply is not raised which will also increase the quantity of notebooks supplied, there will not be enough notebooks to meet the high demand for notebooks which brought about an increase in the quantity of notebooks demanded
Electric bill payable Liability
<h3>Is an electric bill considered a liability?</h3>
In our example, the utility bills for gas and electricity used in December are both an expense and a liability as of December 31.
When the utility bills are paid, the liability is eliminated.
To learn more about liability, refer
to brainly.com/question/24553900
#SPJ4
Answer:
The correct answer would be, Yes South Carolina would be compensating David as his property is now economically valueless.
Explanation:
Under the taking clause, 'The Beachfront Management Act was properly and validly designed to preserve South Carolina's beaches', which means that no one will be allowed to do any development project near beaches in order to save the beaches.
Though it is already written in the Act, The Beachfront Management Act barred any further development on the coasts of Carolina, which makes the purchased property of David as economically valuless, so South Carolina would be compensating him as the law has passed and they won't allow further development but they need to compensate the people who purchased the property on the beaches for the purpose of future business.