Many multinational companies have found that they need to alter their products to meet regulations or consumer preferences in other countries. Unilever discovered that customers in emerging markets such as Indonesia, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka have use for their products, but may not be able to afford a full-size bottle of shampoo or bar of soap. As a result, when Unilever looks at new-product development for these countries, they probably:
a. sell the same size products at a much lower price.
b. develop new scents of shampoo to meet customer preference.
c. do not sell products in these countries at all.
d. sell single-serve packets of shampoo or soap at a low price.

In december of 2004, the company you own entered into a 20-year contract with a grain supplier for daily deliveries of grain to its hot dog bun manufacturing facility. the contract called for "10,000 pounds of grain" to be delivered to the facility at the price of $100,000 per day. until february 2017, the supplier provided processed grain which could easily be used in your manufacturing process. however, no longer wanting to absorb the cost of having the grain processed, the supplier began delivering whole grain. the supplier is arguing that the contract does not specify the type of grain that would be supplied and that it has not breached the contract. your company is arguing that the supplier has an onsite processing plant and processed grain was implicit to the terms of the contract. over the remaining term of the contract, reshipping and having the grain processed would cost your company approximately $10,000,000, opposed to a cost of around $1,000,000 to the supplier. after speaking with in-house counsel, it was estimated that litigation would cost the company several million dollars and last for years. weighing the costs of litigation, along with possible ambiguity in the contract, what are three options you could take to resolve the dispute? which would be the best option for your business and why?