Timothy Carter went out to eat with his girlfriend at a fancy restaurant. When he tried to pay the bill with his Mastercard credit card, he was told that the restaurant accepted only cash or American Express. His waiter suggested that he use the ATM across the street to withdraw cash using his credit card. Tim did as suggested and didn't pay attention to any fees until he received his credit card statement one month later. He was shocked to see the total fees (3.5% cash advance), and his APR was increased to 20.0%. Given the cost of the meal ($180) plus the associated fees, how much did his meal cost him

Which of the following is a disadvantage of equity alliances when compared to non-equity alliances? 1. they are reflective of weaker ties between firms.2. they do not permit the exchange of explicit knowledge.3. they are more likely to bring about lack of trust and commitment.4. they require significantly higher levels of investment.

Alandowner entered into a written agreement with a real estate broker whereby the broker would receive a commission of 10% of the sale price if he procured a "ready, willing, and able buyer" for the landowner's property and if the sale actually proceeded through closing. the broker found a buyer who agreed in writing to buy the property from the landowner for $100,000, the landowner's asking price. the buyer put up $6,000 as a down payment. the agreement between the landowner and the buyer contained a liquidated damages clause providing that, if the buyer defaulted by failing to tender the balance due of $94,000 at the closing date, damages would be 10% of the purchase price. the landowner included that clause because she was counting on using the proceeds of the sale for a business venture that would likely net her at least $10,000. the buyer became seriously ill and defaulted. when he recovered, he demanded that the landowner return his $6,000, and the landowner refused. the broker also demanded the $6,000 from the landowner and was refused. the broker and the buyer filed separate suits against the landowner, with the buyer pleading impossibility of performance. the two cases are consolidated into a single case. how should the court rule as to the disposition of the $6,000?

Richardson hired j. c. flood company, a plumbing contractor, to correct a stoppage in the sewer line of her house. the plumbing company's 'snake' device, used to clear the line leading to the main sewer, became caught in the underground line. to release it, the company excavated a portion of the sewer line in richardson's backyard. in the process, the company discovered numerous leaks in a rusty, defective water pipe that ran parallel with the sewer line. to meet public regulations, the water pipe, of a type no longer approved for such service, had to be replaced either then or later, when the yard would have to be excavated again. the plumbing company proceeded to repair the water pipe. though richardson inspected the company's work daily and did not express any objection to the extra work involved in replacing the water pipe, she refused to pay any part of the total bill after the company completed the entire operation. j. c. flood company then sued richardson for the costs of labor and material it had furnished. (c) for what, if anything, should richardson be liable? explain."