In some countries it is customary to pay government officials to secure necessary business contracts and permits. American businesses must follow U. S. law and cannot make these payments according to the .

He taylor company sells music systems. each music system costs the company $100 and will be sold to the public for $250. in year one, the company sells 100 gift cards to customers for $250 each ($25,000 in total). these cards are valid for just one year, and company officials expect them to all be redeemed. in year two, only 96 of the cards are returned. what amount of net income does the company report for year two in connection with these cards? a. $15,000b. $15,400c. $15,500d. $15,800

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?

David paid $975,000 for two beachfront lots in coastal south carolina, with the intention of building residential homes on each. two years later, the south carolina legislature passed the beachfront management act, barring any further development of the coast, including david's lots. when david files a complaint to seek compensation for his property, south carolina refuses, pointing to a passage in david's own complaint that states "the beachfront management act [was] properly and validly designed to south carolina's " is south carolina required to compensate david under the takings clause?