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.
Answer:
The correct answer is:
A term rider on a permanent policy.
Explanation:
A return of premium rider refers to the case when the insured adds some additional clauses to the normal policy for an extra cost. A rider is obtained considering a specific period of time in which the policy would be paid to the beneficiaries in case of death, sickness or disability of the insured person. In case that the insured subject lives more than the pre-established period of time the amount that he paid for the return of premium rider would be given back to him. For example if J pays $50 monthly for a 30 years life term policy and he lives after that period of time, he will receive $18.000 at the end of the contract as a premium return.
Answer:
b longitudinal
Explanation:
it is b longitudinal. I just know
Answer:
A. It widens the area inside the frontier on a production possibilities
curve.
Explanation:
Answer:
All of them, except "Find and replace, Text."
Explanation:
