ok there are way to much questions can you simplify this question just by a little bit
Answer: All competitive advantages do not accrue to large-sized firms. A major advantage of smaller firms are that they "(B) can launch competitive actions more quickly."
Explanation: Smaller companies can launch competitive actions faster because being smaller, communication is much faster, and decision-making involves fewer interested people who may differ in opinions to direct competitive strategies.
Answer:
The answer to the question would be C
Explanation:
Without a doubt, the economic crisis has changed the way consumers approach the market for goods and services. In this new era, austerity, discounts and the search in different channels of the best price / benefit ratio dominate.
Of course, technology and the Internet are the best allies of the consumer who wants to be informed: thanks to smartphones, bar scanners, social networks or websites that compare prices or offer discounts, we are the buyers with more prior information on what we want or need to acquire.
Answer:
Suppose a senator considers introducing a bill to legislate a minimum hourly wage of $12.50.
Wage Labor Demanded Labor Supplied
$12.50 375,000 625,000
This will result in a surplus of labor (625,000 higher than 375,000)
Which of the following statements are true?
- Binding minimum wages cause structural unemployment. As with all price floors, a deadweight loss results, because the quantity supplied is much greater than the quantity demanded. In this case, the price of labor is the wage, and the deadweight loss = structural unemployment
-
In the absence of price controls, a surplus puts downward pressure on wages until they fall to the equilibrium.
Since a labor surplus exists, the price of labor should start to decrease in order to match the equilibrium price.
-
If the minimum wage is set at $12.50, the market will not reach equilibrium. The quantity supplied of labor is much greater than the quantity demanded for labor resulting in a surplus.
Answer:
c. liable on the ground that Mesa is an intended third-party beneficiary
Explanation:
In a contract, the third-party beneficiary is a business or a person that benefits from the agreement and the terms of the contract that is made between the two other parties. According to law, third-party beneficiary have certain rights which they can enforced if the contract is not fulfilled.
In the context, Mesa is a third party beneficiary. The Mesa County enters into a contract with New Construct Inc. to construct a court house. Now New Construct Inc. again hires the firm Odell to excavate the land site.
While excavating Odell damages few nearby properties, so Mesa County files a law suit against Odell. But Odell argues that Odell is not in agreement with Mesa County or have not entered into with any contract with the County, so Mesa cannot sue the excavator.
But the court hold that as Mesa County is the third party beneficiary of the contract and have certain rights, Odell is held liable for the loss and should compensate for the loss to the County.
