Answer:
Option (a) is correct.
Explanation:
For February,
Opening inventory would have been:
= 25% of February
= (25% × $89,000)
= $22,250
Ending inventory would have been:
= 25% of March
= (25% × $59,000)
= $14,750
Hence,
Cost of goods sold = Opening inventory + Purchases - Ending inventory
$89,000 = $22,250 + Purchases - $14,750
Purchases = $89,000 + $14,750 - $22,250
= $81,500
Therefore, the budgeted purchases of inventory in February Year 2 would be $81,500.
Answer:
A) leveraging new core competencies to improve current market position.
Explanation:
As is given in the scenario, the people that the company Ancho is trying to get are <em>potential customers</em> rather than existing, hence they cannot be said to be building new core competencies <em>to protect and extend current market position</em>. That would have been the case if they were trying to keep those that were already customers to the company.
Ancho cannot also be said to be <em>redeploying existing core competencies to compete in future markets </em>because they are actually acquiring new competencies in electric car manufacturing which was not their original line of business.
There is also no case of <em>unlearning existing core competencies </em>because Anchor has deployed existing competencies in developing a hybrid car rather than just an electric one.
Hence Anchor is trying to get new customers while keeping the old ones and has made a car that will appeal to both existing and potential customers to improve current market position.
Answer:tortious interference
Explanation:
tortious interference is a law term that comes to mind when there is a breach of contract resulting from the competitor's actions. Tortious interference in Tort law(an area of law) deals with the situation in which there is damage to property emanating from intentional or negligent acts of the defendant, in this case the competitor in business. In which case the actions(competitive behaviour) of defendant is not justifiable and permissible and simultaneously breaches contract of plaintiff, it becomes tortious interference.
Answer:
Option (c) is correct.
Explanation:
Given information states that bananas and tangerines are substitute goods. We know that the cross price elasticity of substitute goods is positive which means that there is a positive relationship between the price of one good and the quantity demanded for substitute good.
Therefore, in our case as the price of bananas increases and all the other factors remains constant then as a result the quantity demanded for tangerines increases.
