Answer:
During the first year, the marginal cost equals approximately the minimum EUAC cost. This is why the minimum cost of EUAC to maintain the defender throughout the year is $21,000. Since the minimum EUAC cost to maintain the defender the first year is less than the minimum EUAC cost to the challenger, the defender should not be substituted. This means, it is not economically feasible to make the replacement at this time.
Explanation:
According to the exercise, it is necessary to evaluate to know if it is economic to replace the defender by the challenger. For the calculation, the defender's information is: the defender's market value up to $3000. The expenses are $20000. The information regarding the challenger is: the installation cost $30000, the annual expenses $ 16000, the surrender value $ 2000, the economic life is 12 years, and the interest rate before taxes is 15%.
The minimum EUAC for the challenger is equal to:
The minimal cost is equal to:
A company's product is taking market share from another product in the same company. this process is known as Cannibalization.
<h3>What is Cannibalization in business?</h3>
In business, the phenomenon of Cannibalization occurs when a product that a company makes ends up taking the market share of another product that the same company makes.
The product that does the taking of market share is often a new product that has better qualities and so is sought after by the customers of the same company.
Find out more on product cannibalization at brainly.com/question/17772125
#SPJ1
Options:
a. not entitled to more than 50 percent of the profits, because the parties historically had divided the profits fifty-fifty.
b. not entitled to more than 50 percent of the profits, because it was appropriate to apply partnership principles to an LLC when there was no operating agreement.
c. entitled to more than 50 percent of the profits, because Hurwitz would be unjustly enriched if he received 50 percent of the profits.
d. entitled to more than 50 percent of the profits, because it was the parties' intent to compensate Padden to a greater extent than Hurwitz
Answer:
B
Explanation:
Since neither the partnership nor the limited liability company had any partnership agreement that stated how Hurwitz and Padden would share the profits generated by the business, then the general rule of partnerships should apply, i.e. profits and losses must be divided equally among all the partners.
I know it said from the site and I don’t see a web address so maybe I can give you a few examples and you can go from there:
1. Work place
2. Home
3. School
<span>In this situation coca-cola used what is called a market modification strategy. A market modification strategy is one that a company uses in order to increase use or consumption of a product or service that they offer. In this case, coca-cola was attempting to increase consumption of its product by selling it to a group that does not consume the common breakfast drink.</span>
