Explanation:
1) Famous celebrities and the people with lots of money are often seen with workers round them for their household chores/tasks. Although they are paying money for the work they could have done by themselves but if we analyze closely, they are actually taking advantage of the opportunity cost. The time when they were suppose to do the household work, now they are performing other task in that time which will be giving them much greater economic benefit, taking advantage of the concept of opportunity cost. For example, Cristiano Ronaldo can focus on his workout and daily exercise instead of making daily meals for himself, so he should have hired someone to do the meal work for him while he perform his workout which will help him on the field and will earn him much money.
2) Yes, it is possible for 2 countries to benefit from trade as a whole because they can get into an agreement by allowing free trade between the countries, for example, both the countries could agree that all the trade which will be executed between them would be tax free and no duties will be paid on them. This way the trade numbers would increase and industrialization would take place to meet the export/import orders. On the contrary, trading individually can be not so beneficial because there will be no free trade agreements between individuals i.e. no free lunches, that is why it could cost individuals much more than they can make money out of it.
3) One of the main reasons to oppose policies that restrict trade among the nations is that GDP. GDP is a measure of growth in any country, therefore when there will be no trade among countries, it would result in less productions of goods and services which which lead to less industrialization, which then will result to low employment and more unemployment, ultimately resulting in very low growth for any country and since growth is the only way forward for any nation, economists oppose policies that restrict trade among countries/nations.
I hope this detailed answer of mine help the poster.
Thank You and Good Luck.
Answer:
A. Undue influence
Explanation:
Undue influence in law of contract is when a person uses his or her position of power to take advantage over another person. It is an act of influencing the other party in a contractual relationship. There must be a relationship between both parties before undue influence can take place.
In law of contract, if a person is a victim of undue influence, the person has the right to rescind the contract provided same can be proven in a court of law.
Example of undue influence is when a person is not given parts of properties due to him or her in a family's will, whereas he or she is entitled to it.
Answer:
200 shares
Explanation:
As per the family attribution rule Rule 318 the person is owner of his or her shares and deemed owner of the shares that their parent posseses. This means that Maria is treated as an owner of 100 shares she actually owns and the 100 shares that her mother owns, totalling it to 200 shares. The number of shares that her sister or grandmother owns is not included in the ownership as it is not as per the family attribution rule.
When Raphael Corp. incorrectly mentioned an expense of equipment addition instead of capitalizing the effect of the same, then in such case, the net income of the company is understated in the financial statements.
<h3>What is net income?</h3>
The income which is left at the end of an organization at the end of a financial period after making all the regulatory and compliant payments and deductions, such as taxes and depreciation, it is known as net income.
Hence, the significance of net income is aforementioned.
Learn more about net income here:
brainly.com/question/15570931
#SPJ1
