Answer:
$259.35
Explanation:
The computation of the amount of cash paid is shown below:
= (Purchase value of merchandise - returned goods of merchandise - discount charges)
= ($9,100 - $455 - $259.35)
= $8,385.65
The discount charges is
= (Purchase value of merchandise - returned goods of merchandise) × discount rate
= ($9,100 - $455) × 3%
= $259.35
We simply applied the above formula
Answer:
The total surplus from Andrew's sale to Nick is $35.
Explanation:
The total surplus is the sum of producer surplus and consumer surplus.
The consumer surplus is the difference between the maximum price a consumer is willing to pay for a product and the price he/she actually has to pay.
While producer surplus is the difference between the minimum price a producer is willing to accept for a product and the price he/she actually gets.
Consumer surplus for Nick
= $80 - $60
= $20
Producer surplus for Andrew
= $60 - $45
= $15
Total surplus from generated from Andrew's sale to Nick
= $20 + $15
= $35
Price elasticity can be calculated using the attached formula where:
the first term represents the % change in quantity and the second term represents the % change in price
% change in quantity = (100-120) / (220/2) = -2/11 x 100 = -18.1818%
% change in price = (7-5) / (12/2) = 33.3333%
price elasticity = 18.1818/33.3333 = 0.55Note that the price elasticity is usually taken as an absolute value.
Answer:
c. a significant amount of market power
Explanation:
Cross price elasticity measures the responsiveness of quantity demanded of a good to the changes in price of another good.
If the cross price elascitiy is postive, the goods are subsituites.
If the cross price elasticity is negative, the goods are complementary goods.
If the cross price elasticitiy is low the firm has market power. It means that it's consumers do not change the quantity demanded when the price of the good changes
If the cross price elasticitiy is high, the market has low market power.
I hope my answer helps you.
Answer: No. It does not violate Title VII if Cynthia's employer does not grant her the leave.
Explanation:
From the question, we are informed that Cynthia, requested a two-week leave from her employer to go on a religious pilgrimage and that the pilgrimage was not a requirement of her religion, but Cynthia felt it was a calling from God.
Based on the scenario, Title VII is not violated if Cynthia's employer does not grant her the leave. According to the court, when an employee says that based on his or her religious belief, he or she is required to go to a pilgrimage, the person has to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, her church which is the Roman Catholic didn't call for a pilgrimage as it was her personal choice. Therefore, Title VII is not violated if Cynthia's employer does not grant her the leave.
