Answer:
U.S. Tax Burden on Cola:
The amount of the tax on a case of cola is $4 per case. Of this amount, the burden that falls on consumers is $1 per case, and the burden that falls on producers is ___$3______ per case.
The effect of the tax on the quantity sold would have been larger if the tax had been levied on consumers.
a. True
b. False
Explanation:
The tax burden on consumers, which is represented by the difference in the price of cola from $5 to $6 per unit is $1 ($6 - $5). However, the cash received by producers reduced by $3 from $5 to $2. This shows that the total tax burden on both consumers and producers is $4 ($1 + $3).
This represents a total tax burden of $4 or about 67% based on the new selling price of cola or 80% based on the old selling price of cola.
"The effect of the tax on the quantity sold would have been larger if the tax had been levied on consumers alone. This because the price of cola would have increased to $9 per unit. Since the demand for cola in this instance is elastic, this change in price would have caused a more than 80% change in the quantity demanded.
Answer:
Loss on putting for long time = $300 (Loss
)
Explanation:
Given:
Strike price = $120
Stock price = $123
Premium amount = $3 per share
Realize on investment = ?
Computation of realizing on investment:
Given that strike price is lower than the stock price, So premium paid considers as a loss.
Loss on putting for long time = $3 × 100
Loss on putting for long time = $300 (Loss
)
Answer:
The principle in Law 'Nemo dat quod non habet' states that an individual connot give what he does not have
Indeed Tom can rescind the contract with Matthew as he possesses voidable title to the balls
Explanation:
Until consideration has moved from Matthew to Tom the validity of the agreement/Contract remains inconclusive.
Considering his Account is not funded means he has no valid title to the Balls, he is merely in possession of the Balls but not the Owner.
Tom can sue demanding a return of the Balls irrespective of Matthew having sold them to Aaron.
Another illustration could be given of a thief who sells off a property. Inspite of the Buyer being unaware, because the thief has a voidable title it makes the transaction invalid.
Answer:
This is a situation arising from objective impossibility.
Explanation:
The contract was made for mint condition of car. The car damaged while it was with Frank. Thus, parties are thus discharged from their obligations under the contract.