For the answer to the question above, I<u><em> believe the answer is </em></u><span><u><em>If Jason raises his price he would lose all his customers.</em></u></span>
Because a teenager could do that and he doesn't need an experience for lawn mowing and if you'll gonna increase your price. Be sure that you offer something additional or something special. A price hike in a competitive market is not good at all. Whether it's a big or a small business
Answer:
These are the answer choices for the question:
Students do not have good nutritional information.
Soda purchases represent a large fraction of students' budgets.
There are few other places to purchase soda on campus.
The price elasticity of demand for soda is equal to 1.
And this is the correct answer choice:
There are few other places to purchase soda on campus.
Explanation:
If vending machines raise the price of soda by two, by the still sell almost the same amount, this means that they have a monopoly over the selling of soda in campus, and that students continue to buy there because they do not have any other feasible alternatives.
This is the problem with monopolies: they can charge very high prices and still make a profit because they will always have demand, but this very act makes consumers worse off, and reduces general social welfare.
Answer:
D. inventory.
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that this is a definition of inventory. Just like mentioned in the question, Inventory is any resource that a company has stored away for future use. This can be in regards to tools for a warehouse, stock for sale at a store, materials for production, etc.
Answer:
$1,000,000
Explanation:
The Amount to be reported as lease liability must <em>depict </em>the present value of future cash outflows required to be paid as the entity enjoys its <em>right to use the asset</em>.
Thus, the present value of the minimum lease payments at lease inception was $1,000,000 represents the amount of lease liability.
Answer:
1.Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant] - The plaintiff is Henry Keller of H.K.Enterprises and the defendant is Bank of Nigeria and Nigerian individuals Central Bank of Nigeria, Paul Ogwuma, ?Alhaji Rasheed, Alhaji M.A. Sadiq.
2.Facts [Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case] - The case was filed by Keller against the defendants in United States. The case was filed under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) as the plaintiff found himself a victim of fraud and financial scam.The scam occured when one of the defendants approached the plaintiff who was the sales representative of medical equipments for granting him the distribution rights for Nigeria. The expected amount of money was not transferred in the account of plaintiff inspite of his attempts of meeting the requirements of the defendants. The defendants acted on the behalf of Central Bank of Nigeria and as Nigerian individuals.
3.Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?] - The appeal was filed by the defendants Central Bank of Nigeria,?Paul Ogwuma, Alhaji Rasheed, Alhaji M.A. Sadiq. The lower court gave the decision that the claims of fraud and misrepresentation do not hold against the defendants as the plaintiff entered into an arrangement with them which is not legal and as per the rules. However the lower court ruled that immunity cannot be given under FSIA to the defendants as the commercial activity is an exception and claims for violation of RICO are applicable on them.
4. Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns] - The case turns on the appeal of defendants to be granted immunity under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The ruling indicated that the defendants have sovereign authority. Also, the commercial activity clause did not apply in this case as the activity was not done in United States and did not meet the legal standards of a commercial activity.
5.Explain the applicable law(s). - Applicable laws are Common law fraud, violations of RICO(Rackteer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), Misrepresentation.
6.Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?] - The court resolved the issue by giving a decision in the favor of defendants by ruling that immunity is given to Foreign nationals under FSIA and dismissed any claims filed against them under RICO.
7.Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's decision] - The logic supporting the court's decision is that the arrangement between the plaintiff and defendants including the signed contract was not as per the laws and rules and was not legally compliant. Moreover the commercial activity was out of bounds for United states so the exception to FISA is not applicable. The defendants claimed that they did not enter into the contract with the plaintiff.
Explanation:
