Big retailers attempt to destroy competition by selling goods and services at extremely low prices in _____
a. price discrimination
b. predatory pricing
c. bait-and-switch advertising
d. selling against the brand
b
You might also like to view...
Which of the following statements about Internet usage in the United States is not true?
A. In 2018, around 280 million people of all ages had access to the Internet. B. In 2018, the growth in the number of new online users was less than 2%. C. Over 90% of all U.S. Internet users access the Internet using a mobile device. D. Adults in the 25-to-54-age group have the highest percentage of Internet use.
Which of these statements about the sensitivity report is best?
Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable Cell Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease $D$4 Burritaco 0 -0.125 4 0.125 1E+30 $C$4 Nacholupa 55 0 2.75 0.25 0.114 A) There are no Burritacos being made. B) If the Nacholupa has a cost reduction of more than 0, none will be made. C) The company can make up to 1E+30 Burritacos. D) The company can make an additional 0.25 Nacholupas if they want to with the leftover ingredients.
Statute of Frauds. John Peck, an employee of V.S.H. Realty, Inc, asked Abdu Nessralla, his father-in-law, to act as a "straw" (a person who is put up in name only to take part in a deal) in V.S.H.'s acquisition of real property near Nessralla's farm. In
return, Peck agreed to act as a straw to assist Nessralla in purchasing other nearby property—the Sturtevant farm. Nessralla purchased the property V.S.H. wanted and conveyed it to V.S.H. Subsequently, Peck purchased the Sturtevant farm and conveyed the property to himself and his cousin. Nessralla took no part in the purchase of the Sturtevant farm, provided none of the purchase price, and did not know that the purchase had taken place until about a month later. When Nessralla learned of the purchase and asked Peck to sell the farm to him, Peck refused. Nessralla filed a complaint seeking specific performance of Peck's oral agreement to convey the Sturtevant farm to him. The trial court dismissed Nessralla's action, concluding that the Statute of Frauds operated as a complete defense. Nessralla appealed, arguing that Peck was estopped from pleading the Statute of Frauds as a defense. Nessralla claimed that he suffered injury in reliance on the oral agreement, both because he purchased property on Peck's (V.S.H.'s) behalf and because he took no action to purchase the Sturtevant farm on his own behalf. Will the appellate court uphold the trial court's ruling? Explain.
Which of the following is NOT an action a consumer may utilize to reduce dissonance?
A) Increase the desirability of the brand purchased. B) Decrease the desirability of rejected alternatives. C) Decrease the importance of the purchase decision. D) Reverse the purchase decision (return the product before use). E) Increase the importance of alternatives that were not considered in the purchase initially.