It was these democratic principles that have gotten us to the place we are today. We must not look to the judicial branch to affect the regulation of business; instead we must take on this issue in the tried and proven democratic process. The role of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality of laws and regulations, not create them, and that is exactly what the reinterpretation of the commerce clause has done. The reinterpretation has extended the power of the federal government, and the judicial system too far, allowing them to overstep their boundaries. The continued power grab will destroy the capitalist system shackling the limbs of the free market.
The strong form of the Say's law stated that the "costs of output are always covered in the aggregate by the sale-proceeds resulting from demand". Keynes argues that this can only hold true if the individual savings exactly equal the aggregate investment. While Classical economics believes in the theory of the invisible hand, where any imperfections in the economy get corrected automatically, Keynesian economics refuses the idea. Keynesian economics does not believe that price adjustments are possible easily and so the self-correcting market mechanism based on flexible prices also obviously doesn't. The Keynesian economists actually explain the determinants of saving, consumption, investment, and production differently than the classical economists.
These factors include weaknesses in politics, international reputation, national unity and culture. To evaluate the significance of the North-South divide it is important to access the extent of which the problem rooted itself into the liberal state, and how detrimental this was. The North-South divide was primarily a weakness of Italy’s economy, accompanied with other economic issues that faced the liberal governments. In the late nineteenth century, Italy was still predominantly agricultural and its industrial development was limited compared to Britain, France or Germany. Agriculture tended to be inefficient and backward, particularly in the South where the ‘latifondi’ dominated.
EXCEPTIONS: overcome rule by finding a REAL promise - frame illusory promise as unilateral contract => enforceable ex. Gurfein (99): had window to cancel, but didn’t => enforceable ➢ COULD HAVE bound other party if exercise option - Implied promises ➢ UCC §2-306 (2): a contract to engage in exclusive dealing gives rise to an implied promise to use best efforts Ex. Wood v. Lucy (104): mkt designs for profits ➢ ct implied promise: to make reasonable efforts b/c w/o implied promise, the contract would be meaningless b/c structural agreement = incentive to use best effort is built in Ex. Grouse (110): promised at-will job, not allowed to start work ➢ implied promise in at-will jobs = “good faith opportunity to perform satisfactorily’ - Structural agreements Ex. Lacledes(106): supply propane for long period ➢ although not bound to purchase, practical binding exists ➢ pipes connected to Amoco supply source ➢ hostage theory of contracts: voluntarily
rejection by entering into a substitute transaction, he is excused from performance obligations B. Determined by Little condition is not completely within the promisor's control C. Sufficient cause An agreement that gives one party an unfettered right to terminate at any time will be interpreted to require “reasonable notice,” thus placing a limitation on that party's freedom sufficient to satisfy the consideration requirement 1. Certain terms (open) buyer is constrained to request amounts that are not unreasonably disproportional there is clearly consideration for the modification and it is enforceable the modern rule, an offer for a unilateral contract becomes an option for the offeree 2.
Analysis of Issue On what basis did Medicis initially justify the use of replacement cost to estimate returns? Why is it valid or invalid? Medicis justified the use of replacement to estimate returns using ASC 605-15-15-2 (Revenue Recognition - Products – Scope and Scope Exceptions) which states including: 15-2 (a). [E]xchanges by ultimate customers of one item for another of the same kind, quality, and price (for example, one color or size for another) are not considered returns for purposes of this Subtopic. E&Y reasoned this as it creates an exception to the general rule of reserving for expected future product returns at the gross sales price and deferring the recognition of an equal amount of revenue.
leaving no quantity term. Other important material terms other than the termination clause may also be knocked out, leaving a contract much different than what the parties expected or intended.” The court ruled, “However, it is clear that JCI’s purchase orders were offers and they were accepted by Onics. Therefore, the terms of those offers became the terms of the agreement, including the term allowing JCI to terminate the agreements ("Q.c. onics, ventures,,").” References Q.C. onics,
Monopoly output: MR=400-4q MC=40 MR=MC 400 – 4q = 40 then q=90 unit The reason that producing on half the monopoly output (90*1.5 = 135) a Nash equilibrium outcome is that it will exceed the market demand of Nash equilibrium ($160). 4. Problem #8, p. 221-222 in text. (HINT: First calculate the profits of a market with two firms, and then continue this process for 3, 4, and 5 firms.) a.
Second view is more difficult because compatibilist talk about reasonable futures. To fully understand Inwagen views, I fist like to define terms that need further explanation to fully understand his explanation. He defines free will as being able to take more then one fork in the road, meaning choices. Determinism is the way things are at any particular moment determines a unique physically possible future. Indeterminism is the concept that events (certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically (by causality) by prior events.
In one decision, the Court held that regulations that deprive a person of all ability to develop or utilize his or her property for any economic purposes goes too far and requires just compensation. Another line of Supreme Court cases establishes that if the government effects a permanent physical invasion of the person's property, for example by requiring the owner to allow public access to the property, this constitutes a taking. Absent one of these two circumstances, however, the Court has said that the question whether a regulation goes too far is a contextual, ad hoc determination that involves the weighing of a number of factors. Foremost among these factors is the magnitude of the regulation's economic impact and the degree to which it interferes with legitimate property interests. A particularly important issue that has been raised is whether a person who acquires property after the institution of the regulatory regime should have any claim whatsoever.