Answer:
The correct answer is the interdependence of firms.
Explanation:
An oligopoly market is a market structure where there are a few firms. these firms are interdependent. Price and output decisions of a firm affect its rivals. An oligopoly firm faces a downward-sloping demand curve.
In other market structures like monopolistic or perfect competition, the firms are not interdependent.
Answer:
true
Explanation:
In simple words, the increase in health care benefits that most of the multinational companies provide to their employees will ultimately leads too less affection towards faculty jobs.
This is due to the fact that the cost health care has been increasing day by day and its hard to maintain a decent life style with a necessary service getting that expensive.
Thus, corporate jobs are more attractive than faculty ones as they provide more assurance to the individuals that they will not be financially destroyed due to medical services.
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:
Infrastructure as a service
Explanation:
Answer:
This was an actual court case that ended in the Court of Appeals of the First District of California. Initially a lower court had ruled against the Sharabianlous and set extremely high compensations for damages to Berenstein. I do not understand why the court did it since it was proven that the land was contaminated and couldn't be sold under unless cleaned.
Finally, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the Sharabianlous, not because they thought they were right, but due to errors in the original trial.
The big issue in this case was that the contract signed by the Sharabianlous wasn't clear enough about what would happen if the land was not suitable for sale and they also failed to seek a lawyer when the contamination issues became obvious. If you read the case, even the real estate broker acted against the Sharabianlous when the property was appraised since he didn't tell the appraiser about the contamination issues.
The final ruling was made in 2010, 8 years after the parties engaged in the transaction, which gives us an idea of how complicated things can get when legal procedures are not followed, even though the outcome should be obvious.
If I was part of a jury and the case was about property that couldn't be sold due to contamination, I would probably vote in favor of the buyer, not the seller. It's common sense, but sometimes it you do not follow the appropriate legal path, common sense makes no sense at all.
