Answer: Import Quota
Explanation:
A quota is defined as a government-imposed limit that is placed on trade whether import or export so as to control goods and services that enter or leave the country. we have different typos of quota but we will talk about the
Import Quotas --- To reduce competition faced by local products, government places import quotas on import goods so as to prevent the flood of foreign goods in the market which most times are cheaper than local goods as they are mostly produced with cheaper labor than the domestic products .
Answer:
There are two types of profit and costs in nay business, which are accounting costs/profit and the economic costs/profits.
Accounting costs include everything that is tangible or the monetary costs a firm pays, while the economic costs include the cost which is intangible(Opportunity costs) as well as tangible.
Here in this question, the profit of the firm therefore is,
a. From an accountant;s definition = 130000-(6000+42000+7000) = 75000.
b. From an economist's definition = 130000-(6000+42000+7000+65000+6000) = 4000.
Hope this helps you. Thankyou.
Risk or financial loss ...
Answer:
a.
Total cost per batch is $490
b.
The cost to fill in an order of 94300 cans will be $11270
Explanation:
The cost function for total cost per batch consists of a fixed cost of $80 for set up and a variable cost of $0.1 per unit. Thus, the cost equation for Total cost per batch is,
Let x be the number of units.
Total cost per batch = 0.1 * x + 80
a.
One batch can produce a maximum of 4100 cans.
Total cost per batch = 0.1 * 4100 + 80 = $490 per batch
b.
To fill in an order of 94300 cans, we require the following number of batches.
Number of batches required = 94300 / 4100 = 23 batches
Total cost for 23 batches = 23 * 490 = $11270
Answer:
Jack is NOT entitled to get the ring back and Jackie keep it.
Explanation:
A Contract existed between Jack and Jackie and the ring was given to Jackie after <u>the acceptance of a marriage proposal</u> because 'she accepted his proposal of marriage'. Therefore there is an oral enforceable contract in place.
Another thought or evidence in support of Jackie's position is the fact they had lived together for over a year, hence <u>it is more likely than not that a marriage intention must have been in place</u>.
Furthermore, Jack cannot be entitled to get back the ring because in the United States <u>statute of frauds also cover a prenuptial agreement</u>
<u>Therefore, for Jack to enforce any position or claim of the ring, there must be an agreement to prove that (something in writing), that Jackie had signed; stating that she would return the ring if he changed his mind.</u>
In the scenario, that condition is not present and Jackie would keep the ring.
