Answer:
The explicit cost of flight includes cost of fuel, maintenance cost, payment to pilot.
Explanation:
The explicit costs are the direct costs incurred during the process of production or business. Here, the payments made to the pilot will be a variable cost, the cost of fuel, etc will be explicit cost.
The marginal explicit cost is the increase in the explicit cost with an additional output. The incremental cost of flight correctly determines the marginal explicit cost.
Opportunity cost is the cost of sacrificing the alternative. Here, the marginal opportunity cost will be the revenue that the firm would have earned by renting the flight to other firms or individuals.
Answer:
Option C is the correct option.
Explanation:
As the rights and obligation of the antique rocking chair are been passed to third party, so the damage caused by the checque been bounced is the monetry consideration agreed between the party to the contract, McGraw and Tellis. So Tellis may recover money damages from McGraw. However there is a special condition that can allow Tellis recover his asset from Rio if the third party knew before purchase of this asset, that the checque paid to Tellis by McGraw was dishonoured but still he contracted with McGraw to acquire the antique rocking chair.
Overall the option C is the correct option with which the case scenario relates.
Answer: Please refer to Explanation.
Explanation:
Two Companies. We shall call them A and B.
If A and B decide not to advertise, they both get $5,000,000.
If A advertises and B does not then A captures $3 million from B at a cost of $2 million meaning their payoff would be,
= 5 million - 2 million + 3 million
= $6 million.
A will have $6 million and B will have $2 million as $3 million was captured from them. This scenario holds true if B is the one that advertises and A does not.
If both of them Advertise, they both reduce their gains by $2 million while capturing $3 million from each other so they'll essentially both have just $3 million if they both decide to advertise.
With the above scenarios, it is better for both companies to ADVERTISE if there is NO COLLUSION. This is because it ensures that they do not get the lowest payoff of $2 million if the other company decides to advertise and they do not.
However, if they DO COLLUDE. They must both decide that NONE of them SHOULD ADVERTISE and this would leave them with their original $5 million each which is a higher payoff than the $3 million they will both receive if they were both advertising.
Answer:
D. $77,600
Explanation:
The $77,600 made to purchase equipment would be reported as a cash outflow in the investing activities section. This is because asset purchased such as equipment is an investment while the cash used to purchase the asset is regarded as cash outflow.
Dividends are recorded in the financing section, while cash paid for interest and paid to suppliers would be recorded in the operating activities.
Answer:
b. both firms will reduce their price.
Explanation:
The Nash equilibrium is a decision-making theorem that lies inside the game theory where the player could attain the expected result by not deviating to the beginning strategy. In this, the strategy of the each player is optimal at the time when the other player decisions are relevant
So as per the given situation, both the firm should decrease their price
hence the option b is correct
