Answer:
B. The denial is justifiable given the level of interbrand competition.
Explanation:
Anti trust law only applicable if you can proof that two or more producers in the same industry work together in order to assert their control over the market. They can do this through price fixing, controlling the amount of supply, etc.
This condition<em> can't be found</em> in the scenario above.
The denial that done by PepsiCo is justifiable because in a really competitive market, a company need to impose a strict requirement on which entities they should form a dealership relation with. If PepsiCo choose the wrong dealers, Its competitors could easily taken over the market and resulted in a huge amount of loss for the company.
Ben paid the value of the item + sales tax
Sales tax = 6.25% of worth of item.
Sales tax = (6.25/100) * 249.99 = $15.62.
Hence Ben paid $249.99 + $15.62 = $265.61
To the nearest cent he paid $265.60
Answer:
break even point in units:
- a = 11,700
- b = 46,800
- c = 35,100
Explanation:
beer mugs contribution margin expected sales
a $5 25,000
b $4 100,000
c $3 50,000
fixed costs = $351,000
if the sales proportion remains the same, we can assume a bundle of products = 1a + 4b + 3c (1 for every 25,000 units) whose contribution margin = $5 + $16 + $9 = $30
break even point = fixed costs / bundle's contribution margin = $351,000 / $30 = 11,700 bundles
break even point in units:
a = 11,700
b = 11,700 x 4 = 46,800
c = 11,700 x 3 = 35,100
Answer:
A. the risk of wind damage is potentially diversifiable, but the risk of flooding is not
Explanation:
Based on the scenario being described it can be said that the best explanation for these different approaches would be that the risk of wind damage is potentially diversifiable, but the risk of flooding is not. Meaning that most insurance companies cover wind damage because it is most likely during a hurricane but flooding may be a unique situation which is not always covered by most insurance companies/policies.
Answer:
The answer is Selling Stocks
