Lyft raises ride-sharing fares when more people need rides and vice versa. This is referred to as .

Agood for which demand increases as income rises is and a good for which demand increases as income falls is

Case in point 2.4 attaway airlines, part two back at attaway airlines, the morning meeting ended with no agreement between dan esposito and molly kinnon. in fact, a new issue arose. molly now says that the new accounting system is entitled to the highest priority because the federal government soon will require the reporting of certain types of company-paid health insurance premiums. because the current system will not handle this report, she insists that the entire accounting system is a nondiscretionary project. as you might expect, dan is upset. can part of a project be nondiscretionary? what issues need to be discussed? the committee meets again tomorrow, and the members will look to you, as the it director, for guidance.

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?