Answer:
1. Please find it attached.
If both of them don't get lawyers they will each make half of the $5 million being $2.5 million a piece.
If one side hires a lawyer and the other doesn't, the side with the lawyer will win 0.9 of $5 million which is $4,500,000. However they would have paid the lawyer $200,000 so that payout drops to $4,500,000. The other would make 0.1 which is $500,000.
If they both get a lawyer they will each get half which is $2,500,000 but they would both have paid their lawyers $200,000 a piece so the net payout would be $2,300,000.
2. The Nash Equilibrium is the alternative that it would not serve either party to deviate from as it serves them both well. The Nash Equilibriums would be If both don't get a lawyer or if both get a lawyer.
3. Yes they would because without lawyers they would make more money as they would not have to pay the $200,000 in fees.
Answer:
c. $139,000 of net cash used.
Explanation:
Investing Activities shows results from Purchase or Sales of Assets or Investments.
Cash flow from Investing Activities
Purchase of equipment (150,000)
Proceeds from the sale of equipment 131,000
Purchase of land (120,000)
Net Cash used by Investing Activities (139,000)
Net cash flows from investing activities for the year were: ($139,000)
Answer: more; externality; market power.
Explanation:
Bakers are much (more) likely to supply pastries to the market if property rights are not enforced.
a. A manufacturing plant dumps chemical waste into a nearby river, poisoning the water supply for a small town downstream. - Externality
Externality, refers to the benefit s or costs that someone else incurs based on the economic decision of another person. In this case, this is a negative externality as the small town bears the cost of the production activities of the company.
b. A single public utilities company is responsible for supplying electricity for an entire state. As a result, the utilities company can set the price of electricity - Market power
Market power is when a firm is able to dictate the price and can then raise the price. This brings about the reduction in output as well. Since the single public utilities company is responsible for supplying electricity for an entire state, the company is enjoying monopoly power or market power.
Answer:
Option (B) is correct.
Explanation:
The utility maximization point for a consumer is as follows:
It is given that,
price of Pepsi(x) = $1 per can
price of a hamburger(y) = $2
Marginal utility from Pepsi = 4
Marginal utility from hamburgers = 6
Hence,
4 > 3
Therefore, it can be seen that the consumer's utility is not maximized at this point.
Law of diminishing marginal utility states that as the consumer consumes more and more quantity of goods then as a result the utility obtained from the consumption goes on diminishing.
So, there is a need to increase the quantity of Pepsi consumed and reducing the quantity of hamburgers consumed.
Answer:
The correct answer is C. This claim is most likely based on the right to substantive due process.
Explanation:
Substantive due process is a means by which the government's ability to interfere with the fundamental rights of individuals is limited. In this case, the fundamental right violated is that of freedom of expression, guaranteed by the First Amendment. Thus, since it is a right with constitutional protection, the government cannot curtail its operation without the due legal process necessary for this purpose.
