Answer:
a per se violation of antitrust law.
Explanation:
The antitrust laws can be defined as those laws that are created by the US government to protect consumers from unfair means of competition in market. The aim of creating such laws is to ensure the protection of customers from corruptive business practices and also to ensure safe healthy competitive environment among same business companies.
<u>In the given scenario, the Association of Organic Food Growers is violating the antitrust law by boycotting farmers, ranchers, etc. The antitrust laws are violated by companies in several ways among them is by boycotting</u>.
Boycotting can be defined as an agreement between several companies that excludes a group of customers or market to avert them from buying aanyy goods or products.
This boycotting agreement is a per se violation of antitrust law.
Answer:
I RLLY NEED THESE POINTS IM SO SORRY!
Explanation:
Answer:
When the <u>market</u> value of debt is the same as its face value, it is said to be selling at <u>par</u> value.
Explanation:
Face value and par value is same. When market price of the bond is same as the face value of the bond it is said that this debt is trading on its par value. Par or face value is the value on which bond is initially issued and the value mentioned on the face of the bond. So, When the <u>market</u> value of debt is the same as its face value, it is said to be selling at <u>par</u> value.
Answer: Yes, although the salesperson did not make any express warranties, the UCC imposes an implied warranty of merchantability under which the rotisserie is guaranteed to be fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is used.
Explanation:
From the information given, we can infer that Mason has a recourse. Even though the salesperson did not make any express warranties, it should be noted that the UCC imposes an implied warranty of merchantability and hence, the rotisserie will be guaranteed to be fit for the purposes ordinarily for which it is used.
Therefore, the correct option will be D.