One of your clients has been doing poorly as far as the products you've been selling. While inspecting the rigs and checking the inventory you discover the buyer firm is not properly disposing of some chemicals associated with drilling and it appears that it might get through some of the EPA guidelines. You know the penalties for not following the guidelines is very minimal and have seen other clients with much worse violations. When you discuss the issue with the manager the reply is, "Are you telling us how to run our operations?," asked the buyer. "I've been in this business for twenty years and you're the first sales person to lecture me about my own business practices. Thank you for your advice and please don't come back. We'll be buying from one of your competitors." When you get back to your desk your manager sends you a memo about the phone conversation you had with your last client and explains in no uncertain terms that you are never to do that again, at least in this industry and at Acme! What do you do?"

As a project manager for a large construction company, shaun decided to make the performance appraisal process as painless as possible for his crew. he spent a considerable amount of time creating performance standards he felt were reasonable, and after six months' time, he scheduled individual appointments with each worker to discuss strengths and weaknesses and areas that needed improvement according to the standards he privately set. some employees were sent to vestibule training, and one even got a promotion with additional compensation. what did he fail to do correctly

The cost of the beginning work in process inventory was comprised of $3,000 of direct materials, $10,000 of direct labor, and $10,000 of factory overhead. costs incurred during the period were comprised of $15,000 of direct materials costs, and $100,000 of conversion costs. the equivalent units of production (eup) for the period were 9,000 for direct materials and 6,000 for conversion. the costs per eup were:

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court.the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center.because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.