What might not be considered as a strategically beneficial reason why a company may enter into strategic partnerships or cooperative arrangements with key suppliers, distributors, or makers of complementary products?
A. to enable greater opportunities for employee advancement
B. to overcome disadvantages of small production volumes that limit scale economies and low production costs
C. to expedite the development of promising new technologies or products
D. to improve access to new markets
E. to improve supply chain efficiency
Answer: A
You might also like to view...
A misrepresentation of a material fact is actionable as fraud only if it occurs by words
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
A part that connects two levels should have a distance between the two holes of 4". It has been determined that x-bar and R-charts should be set up to determine if the process is in statistical control
The following ten samples of size four were collected. Calculate the control limits, plot the control charts, and determine if the process is in control. Mean Range Sample 1 4.01 0.04 Sample 2 3.98 0.06 Sample 3 4.00 0.02 Sample 4 3.99 0.05 Sample 5 4.03 0.06 Sample 6 3.97 0.02 Sample 7 4.02 0.02 Sample 8 3.99 0.04 Sample 9 3.98 0.05 Sample 10 4.01 0.06
One potential rationale for paying dividends is that the payment of dividends indirectly results in a
closer monitoring of management's investment activities, hence lowering agency costs. Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Limitation of Remedies. Destileria Serralles, Inc, a distributor of rum and other products, operates a rum bottling plant in Puerto Rico. Figgie International, Inc, contracted with Serralles to provide bottle labeling equipment capable of placing a
clear label on a clear bottle of "Cristal" rum within a raised glass oval. The contract stated that Serralles's remedy, in case of a breach of contract, was limited to repair, replacement, or refund. When the equipment was installed in the Serralles plant, problems arose immediately. Figgie attempted to repair the equipment, but when it still did not work properly several months later, Figgie refunded the purchase price and Serralles returned the equipment. Serralles asked Figgie to pay for Serralles's losses caused by the failure of the equipment and by the delay in obtaining alternative machinery. Figgie filed a suit in a federal district court, asserting that it owed nothing to Serralles because its remedy for breach was limited to repair, replacement, or refund. Serralles responded that the limitation "fail