Answer: Jose has to pay $600.
Explanation:
Jose has to pay $600 to Jane for her inconvenience.
In Accordance with Coase theorem, when two conflicting parties exist, one has to ‘buy the right’ from the other party.
Which In this scenario or case, Jane has the ‘right to prevent Jose from having a dog’.
Thus, Jose has to pay compensation to Jane so that he can keep his dog and at the same time Jane is also compensated for the inconvenience which may arise later.
Answer:
b. Investors buy products in other countries.
Explanation:
Inflation causes higher cost of production for manufacturer which then charge high cost for the products. Thus, if there is inflation in US, product cost will skyrocket thus companies will buy products from other countries where the product might be at a cheaper cost.
Answer:
3) physical-asset specificity
Explanation:
In a business to business relationship, physical asset specificity refers to an asset, or product or service designed to fit a particular or specialized customer's need.
In this case, True Tomato needs a very specific type of bottle that probably no other ketchup manufacturer may use or want to use. So their bottle supplier specifically manufactures the tomato shaped bottle to meet True Tomato's specific requirements.
The economy is currently in long-run equilibrium. If the central bank increases the money supply, in the long run the price level will raises.
<h3>What is long-run equilibrium?</h3>
The term “long-run equilibrium” is used in economics to represent a theoretical idea in which all markets are in equilibrium and all prices and quantities have fully adjusted to achieve equilibrium.
The long-run differs from the short-run, which has some limitations and markets that are not entirely balanced.
Currently, the economy is in long-run balance. If the central bank expands the money supply, the price level will rise in the long run.
Therefore, in the long run, the price level will raise as the central bank increases the money supply.
To learn more about the money supply, refer to:
brainly.com/question/14041873
#SPJ4
Answer:
a. he or she has not ratified the contract on reaching majority.
Explanation:
Generally a minor is allowed to dissaffirm a contract they entered when they were underaged. Also when they attain the age of majority they will need to ratify the contract for it to be binding.
In the case where the contract has not been ratified on reaching majority, it can still be dissaffirmed.
Contracts with minors are void, and only some state laws allow for ratification of the contract on attainment of majority age.
