Answer:
b. are clear in their own minds about the scope of the negotiations.
Explanation:
Shadow negotiations refer to the unspoken assumptions that determine how those involved in a deal with each other, whose opinions get heard, whose interests hold sway. Therefore, this is important so the negotiators are clear in their own minds about the scope of the negotiations. Meaning that they go into the negotiation knowing who has more bargaining power and how far they can actually take the negotiation.
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>.
Answer:
c. skimming pricing
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that in this scenario Xerox was using a skimming pricing strategy to help recover the cost of its research and development. This is a pricing strategy in which the company places a really high initial price for it's new product, but then goes lowering the price as time passes. This also makes individuals believe that they are getting a bargain when prices begin to drop and decide to buy more.
Answer: Yes they did.
Explanation:
Apparent Authority refers to a scenario where a Agent is assumed to have the power to act on behalf of a Principal regardless of if said authority had not being expressly given whether implicitly or otherwise.
It is worthy of note that this power is only valid if the third party in the transaction assumes from the conduct of the agent, that they have such powers to act.
It is stated in the text that there was no question that the brokers had the actual or implied authority to sell the stock meaning that the Principal had not done enough to show that the agents did not have the Authority to act as they did. For this reason, they can indeed be sued under the Principle of Apparent Authority.
