A tort is a wrong committed against somebody. Essentially, a tort is behavior that our society has determined to be unacceptable. Our legal system requires a tortfeasor to compensate individuals who were harmed by her unacceptable behavior. We are saying: "Hey, you did not behave properly; you should have behaved differently, so you should make it up to persons whom you have harmed." This makes perfect sense when applied to intentional torts such as assault, battery, or conversion. However, it gets more complicated when it is applied to things that were not intentionally done. Do you feel that individuals should be held liable for (forced to compensate anybody injured by) accidents that they have? After all, how can you expect somebody to choose not to do something that they did not intentionally do in the first place? Be sure fully to explain and support your answer.

bradford, inc., expects to sell 9,000 ceramic vases for $21 each. direct materials costs are $3, direct manufacturing labor is $12, and manufacturing overhead is $3 per vase. the following inventory levels apply to 2019: beginning inventory ending inventory direct materials 3,000 units 3,000 units work-in-process inventory 0 units 0 units finished goods inventory 300 units 500 units what are the 2019 budgeted production costs for direct materials, direct manufacturing labor, and manufacturing overhead, respectively?

Which of the following is an example of a positive externality? a. promoting generic drugs would benefit people. b. a lower inflation rate would benefit most consumers. c. compulsory flu shots for all students prevents the spread of illness in the general public. d. singapore has adopted a comprehensive savings plan for all workers known as the central provident fund.

David burdick is the ceo of acme bubblegum, a successful public company. as one of the cofounders of the company, burdick has enjoyed speaking and writing about the success of acme bubblegum for several years. typically, he speaks at conferences or directly to the press, but recently, he has been blogging about his firm anonymously. specifically, he defended a recent advertising campaign that was unpopular among consumers and pointedly attacked one of acme bubblegum’s competitors. burdick deeply enjoys his anonymous blogging and believes that none of his readers actually know that he works for acme bubblegum. should burdick be allowed to praise his company’s performance anonymously online? should he be allowed to attack his competitors without disclosing his relationship with the company? how would you feel if the ceo of a company at which you shopped was secretly writing criticisms of his or her competition? how would you feel if you knew a writer for your favorite blog was actually closely involved in a company that the blog discussed? 1. define the ethical issue? 2. who are the primary stakeholders? 3. what are the possible alternatives? 4. how could you evaluate the ethical implications of the alternative actions (use appropriate decision rules)? 5. what action would you recommend and why?