An investor entered into a contract with a winery. The contract provided that the investor would invest $1 million in the winery and, in return, the winery would produce and market at least 500,000 bottles of wine each year for five years under a specified label. The contract included a provision that, if feasible, the wine would be distributed by the winery only through a certain wholesale distributor of fine wines. Neither the investor nor the winery had previously dealt with the distributor. The distributor learned of the contract two days later from reading a trade newspaper. In reliance thereon, he immediately hired an additional sales executive and contracted for enlargement of his wine storage and display facility. If the winery refuses to distribute the wine through the distributor and the distributor then sues the winery for breach of contract, is it likely that the distributor will prevail

It is NOT likely that the distributor will prevail.

Explanation:

There was no contract between the distributor and the winery.  The intended distributor was not clearly stated in the trade newspaper that the distributor read and relied on to expand his salesforce and storage and display facilities.  The distributed voluntarily acted on its own whims and caprices.  A contract cannot be imagined.  There must be an offer and acceptance, establishing the full consent of the parties to enter into a contract.  The intention to contract is also lacking.

urban company reports the following information regarding its production cost: units produced 37,000 units direct labor $ 30 per unit direct materials $ 35 per unit variable overhead $ 237,000 in total fixed overhead $ 127,000 in total

apex verified answer < 3

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : d. choose to : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

i really hope this < 3 < 3 < 3