Answer:
1. I feel like Pat's new strategy isn't ethical. Pat doesn't pay for the suits; he just buys them and then returns them. Pat benefits, but the store he gets the suits from doesn't. In fact, they are harmed from this transaction because they are unable to have the suit for others to buy while Pat has it. There could be consequences with this strategy. For example, the suit might be damaged, and Pat won't be able to return it. Another problem is that others might find out about Pat's strategy, and they might view them as unprofessional. This is a problem for Pat since the reason Pat wore those suits was to look professional.
2. The stores are harmed from this transaction. They are unable to sell the suits to other buyers. The stores lose potential customers, so the stores lose potential money.
3. The companies should record that Pat had bought the suit only to return it the next day, so that they can act accordingly when Pat or someone else comes back to "buy" a suit.
Explanation:
Answer:
No, Hines is not guilty of unlawful price descrimination
Explanation:
Hines actions has not meet the criteria for price discrimination which include giving different prices based on gender, race or religion and never prevented the resale of product and the product package for sale never indicated the inclusion of free demonstrator and free advertising material.
Answer:
The final value of the investment after 3 years is $7,146.10
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Investment= $6,000
Interest rate= 6% compounded annually
The number of years= 3 years.
To calculate the final value, we need to use the following formula:
FV= PV*(1+i)^n
FV= 6,000*(1.06^3)
FV= $7,146.10
The final value of the investment after 3 years is $7,146.10
Answer:
Ms. Z should invest in the State A.
Explanation:
Coupons from State A = (1 - 0.33)*0.05*75000
= 2512.5
Coupons from State R = (1 - 0.33 - 0.085)*.054*75000
= 2369.25
Therefore, Ms. Z should invest in the State A .
Answer:
The correct answer is: Assumption of the risk.
Explanation:
If the risk inherent in a particular action that caused an injury is knowingly and voluntarily assumed, you cannot sue anyone to recover the damages. Suppose, for example, a situation in which he went to a friend's house and was warned about the use of the back door because the floor cover was seriously damaged and would not support a person's weight on it. If you have decided to ignore the warning and use the back door, the doctrine of risk taking will probably prevent the recovery of injuries sustained by a fall on that floor. The court will decide that you "assumed the risk" of such injury.