Answer:
True
Explanation:
In the given statement, it was stated that there was a briefing online about the possibility of terrorist activities. She read the news and understood its meaning. The insurance company is also aware of the news online. Therefore, the insurance company will not take any responsibility for the losses that might occur while she opens her shop.
Answer:
The court ruled against both Americar and Regency Inn, and then Regency Inn won its case against Americar. The nuisance case itself is pretty unpleasant, so it's not worth referring to it.
The fundamentals for the ruling against Americar were that they themselves had drafted the lease agreement and that the clause included in the lease agreement by which they agreed to indemnify Regency Inn was valid. The original lease term had already expired, but Americar continued to lease the offices on a monthly basis. Since they never left the place, the clauses in the original agreement were still valid even though the lease changed to a monthly basis. I.e. if you sign a lease contract and after the original contract is over, you continue to lease the same place, then the clauses from the original contract still apply.
The clause stated that Americar was liable for damages that took place on the leased premises or in their proximity, i.e. the area near their offices. The parking lot was considered to be in the proximity of Americar's offices.
Answer:
Instructions are below.
Explanation:
<u>We were provided with the activity rates. To calculate the total cost, first, we need to allocate overhead to both product lines:</u>
<u></u>
Allocated MOH= Estimated manufacturing overhead rate* Actual amount of allocation base
Product K425:
Allocated MOH= (6*80) + (4*100) + (50*1) + (90*1) + (14*1) + (9*80)
Allocated MOH= $1,754
Product M67:
Allocated MOH= (6*500) + (4*1,500) + (50*4) + (90*4) + (14*10) + (9*500)
Allocated MOH= $14,200
<u>Now, we can calculate the unitary cost:</u>
Product K425:
Unitary cost= 13 + 5.6 + (1,754/200)
Unitary cost= $27.37
Product M67:
Unitary cost= 56 + 3.5 + (14,200/2,000)
Unitary cost= $66.6
Full question:
In some states and localities, scalping is against the law although enforcement is spotty
A. Using supply/demand analysis and words, demonstrate what a weakly enforced antiscalping law would likely do to the price of tickets.
B. Using supply/demand analysis and words, demonstrate what a strongly enforced antiscalping law would likely do to the price of tickets
Answer and Explanation:
A. For the first scenario, a weakly enforced antiscalping law would still allow the resale of tickets as it is not enforced properly. Therefore it's effect on price would remain as though there were no laws restricting scalping( scalping: price increase created by artificial shortage and bulk resale of tickets) . See the attached diagram for the supply and demand curve and price increase as a result of a weak antiscalping law
B. For the second scenario, scalping has no effect on price as antiscalping laws are strong and therefore there is no scalping. Price remains the same and does not change.
In diagram A for first scenario price increases from p1 to p2 and quantity decreases from q1 to q2 to indicate increase in price and quantity decrease for shortage respectively. This shows the effect of scalping on the market with weak antiscalping laws
In diagram B, price and quantity remain the same to show strong antiscalping laws