B. When the subject matter is objective and informative
<u><em>the answer is A TRACK CHANGES . autocorrect is wrong it deletes the answer and changes it to the right one . but track changes shows all the changes you have made to the paper hope this helps. </em></u>
Answer:
1. per se application
U.S. Competition Law
This law checks whether certain parts of a contract or agreement have violated US antitrust laws.
2. Misuse of activity
EU Competition Law
This is part of the European Union's competition law that prohibits the use of activity to try to gain unfair advantges.
3. Extraterritoriality
US and EU
This is a provision in both US and EU anti-competition and anti-trust laws that states that the activities of foreign companies fall under the law if these activities influence the people within the jurisdiction of the US or the EU.
4. Trade obstacle, nontariff
France
These are a part of the French system.
5. Strict liability
U.S. Tort Law
A concept in US Tort law that states that a person is liable for an offence they committed and their state of mind or intent when they committed said offence is irrelevant.
6. Punitive damages
U.S. Product Liability Law
A concept in the US that allows for the extra punishment of the party in the wrong to dissuade others from doing so and to reward the party in the right more justly.
Answer:
Financial disadvantage from further processing = $(9)
Explanation:
<em>A company should process further a product if the additional revenue from the split-off point is greater than than the further processing cost. </em>
<em>Also note that all cost incurred up to the split-off point (the cost of crushing) are irrelevant to the decision to process further . </em>
$
Sales revenue after crushing 55
Sales revenue at the split-off point <u>81</u>
Additional sales revenue 26
Further processing cost <u> (35)</u>
Net income after further processing <u> (9)
</u>
Financial disadvantage from further processing = $(9)
<em>Kindly note that the allocated joint costs( cost of sugar and crushing) are irrelevant. This implies that whether or not the intermediate products are processed further the joint costs are irrelevant to the decision to process the beet juice further</em>.
Yea. Like with Nike always being next to Lebron or Curry with Under Armor.
