Answer:
The correct answer is option C.
Explanation:
The law of diminishing marginal utility means that keeping other things at constant the marginal utility derived from the consumption of a commodity goes on declining with each additional unit of the commodity.
So, the marginal utility from the first unit will be highest, that from second unit will be lesser, that from third even lower and so on.
In the examples given above, Wesly's case is most applicable to this.
So, option C is the correct answer.
Answer: Mutual mistake
Explanation:
A mutual mistake in a contract is a situation that arises when the parties in a contract make the same mistake in reference to a significant fact in the contract. i.e., they are mutually ignorant of a fact of the contract.
Had they both known about that mistake, they might not have gone into the contract so the contract is voidable in this scenario.
Both Walker and Sheerwood were mutually mistaken about the fact that Rose was pregnant when they went into the contract so this contract is voidable by this theory.
Answer:
$23,160
Explanation:
The Total interest = 15,040 + 4040 + 1040 + 3040
Total interest = $23,160
Hence, the Interest deductable this year = $23,160
Answer:
First we need to first find the equilibrium quantity and price during normal times.
The equilibrium price in normal times is P=$3 and the equilibrium quantity is 55 bottles.
During the hurricane, the government will set a price ceiling of $3. We can infer from the table that the quantity supplied at P=$3 is 55 bottles while the quantity demanded during hurricane at the price of $3 per bottle is 105 bottles. Hence,
105-55= 50
During a hurricane, there would be a shortage of 50 bottles of water.
If there were no price ceiling, then the equilibrium price would be such that the quantity demanded during hurricane equals the quantity supplied. From the table we can see that the equilibrium price would in that case be P=$5 per bottle where the equilibrium quantity is 85 bottles. With the price ceiling only 55 bottles are available for trading. Now without the price ceiling 85 bottles are available.
Hence consumers would have to pay an additional $2 (=5-3) but they can now buy an additional 30 bottles [=85-55].
Without the antiprice gouging law, consumers would have to pay $2 more than the ceiling price, but they would bv able to buy 30 more bottles of water.
