Answer:
b. your demand for peanut butter increases today.
Explanation:
If the price of a commodity would increase at a later date, consumers would increase demand for the good today. Consumers would be willing to buy as much as they can at the lower price. This would shift the demand curve to the right.
The correct statement is Inflation is problematic if unexpected
Money loses purchasing power during inflation and there's too much of it.
Answer:
The value of GDP is 75
Explanation:
GDP is equal to Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Net Exports (Exports minus Imports), where total Investment is equal to Fixed Investment plus the Change in Inventories.
The change in GDP will therefore equal the change in Consumption + the change in Investment + the change in Government Spending + the change in Net Exports, where the change in Investment will equal the change in Fixed Investment plus the change in the Change in Inventories.
= Government purchases of goods and services (10) + Consumption Expenditures (70
)+ Exports (5
) - Imports (12) + Change in Inventories (-7
) + Construction of new homes and apartments (15
) - Sales of existing homes and apartments (22
) + Government payments to retirees (17
) + Business Fixed Investment (9)
= 75
Answer:
<em>Ratification by Principal One of the criteria for enactment is that all material truths involved in the transaction must be known to the Principal. Van Stavern was not aware of Hash's behaviour. </em>
He did not realize that somehow the steel is being shipped under his name, and that the shipments were being billed him directly. Unlike liability through obvious authority, approval by the principal is a positive act by which he or she acknowledges the agent's illegal actions.
Just a principal would ratify; thus, Van Stavern was not directly imputed to information by the invoices and checks signed by Van Stavern's workers.
The court stated that the use of corporate checks was further proof that Van Stavern regarded the expenditures as business, not private. So Van Stavern could not be held personally liable.
Remember that on Sutton Steel that's not excessively harsh. Sutton understood it was working with a building company and did not seek to get the personal approval of the contract from Van Stavern.
<em>Lawfully, Sutton's agreement in this case is called an unaccepted offer which can be withdrawn at any time.</em>
<em></em>
