Suppose that a worker in Agland can produce either 10 units of organic grain or 2 units of incense per year, and a worker in Finland can produce either 5 units of organic grain or 15 units of incense per year. There are 20 workers in Agland and 10 workers in England. Currently the two countries do not trade. Agland produces and consumes 100 units of grain and 20 units of incense per year. Zenland produces and consumes 50 units of grain and no incense per year. If each country made the decision to specialize in producing the good in which it has a comparative advantage, then the combined yearly output of the two countries would increase by

In december of 2004, the company you own entered into a 20-year contract with a grain supplier for daily deliveries of grain to its hot dog bun manufacturing facility. the contract called for "10,000 pounds of grain" to be delivered to the facility at the price of $100,000 per day. until february 2017, the supplier provided processed grain which could easily be used in your manufacturing process. however, no longer wanting to absorb the cost of having the grain processed, the supplier began delivering whole grain. the supplier is arguing that the contract does not specify the type of grain that would be supplied and that it has not breached the contract. your company is arguing that the supplier has an onsite processing plant and processed grain was implicit to the terms of the contract. over the remaining term of the contract, reshipping and having the grain processed would cost your company approximately $10,000,000, opposed to a cost of around $1,000,000 to the supplier. after speaking with in-house counsel, it was estimated that litigation would cost the company several million dollars and last for years. weighing the costs of litigation, along with possible ambiguity in the contract, what are three options you could take to resolve the dispute? which would be the best option for your business and why?