Answer:
The correct answer is option C.
Explanation:
Imposition of tax causes the market equilibrium price to increase. This creates a tax wedge by increasing the price paid by the buyer and reducing the price received by the seller.
So the burden of tax is shared by both buyers and sellers. Who will share most of the burden depends on their elasticity.
If the demand is more inelastic, consumers will share most of the burden. If the supply is more inelastic, producers will bear most of the burden.
Answer: The correct answer is "a. $26,000".
Explanation: Implicit costs: Also known as opportunity costs have to do with alternative profit options, or money that we no longer receive when performing certain commercial actions.
A person incurs implicit costs when he waives an alternative action.
Implicit costs: $20000 + $6000 = $26000.
Answer:
A. A greater percentage of Canadian agricultural acreage was unplanted than of Brazilian agriculture acreage.
Explanation:
The planted acre yield Brazil is 68% than of Canada. The agricultural acre yield in Brazil is 115% of Canada. The difference between agricultural yield and planted acre yield is that agricultural yield is all the available land which can be used to grow crops whereas planted yield is the actual acre land which is planted with crops. The planted acre is less than agricultural acre which results in more are being unplanted in Canada than of Brazilian agricultural acreage.
Answer:
Product Implied Warranty
According to the Uniform Commercial Code, a product warranty guarantees that a product will work when used for its intended purposes. There are two key types of implied warranties: merchantability and fitness. The implied warranty of merchantability states that a product will meet reasonable expectations of the buyer. The implied warranty of fitness means that the product will meet the buyer's intended use.
Based on the above, we can conclude that the implied warranty of merchantability actually exists for the hair dryer. However, Patrick clearly violated it in this situation through the accident of dropping it in water.
Having thus violated the warranty, he cannot reasonably recover any damages from the company.
Explanation:
a) Facts of the case:
1. Every hair dryer is properly labeled and contains safety precautions against misuse.
2. The SF9000 hair dryer that Patrick purchased functioned properly for a month.
3. Patrick accidentally drops the hair dryer in water, causing him an electric shock.
4. Patrick sues for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
