Please give this assignment to Rochak
FOR ALL QUESTIONS, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE FEEEBACK TO SOMEONE ELSE POST , JUST LIKE THE ASSIGNMENT YOU DID LAST TIME. (100 words enough for each question) Question 1: (Below post is from question 2 of order 107386) During the transactions between Clean and Warren Medical, Clean delivered the requested cases but since Warren was busy at the time of delivery, they did not inspect the products. It is the buyers responsibility to inspect all received goods at the time of delivery. Under the Uniform Commercial Code 2-602, rejections of goods must be with in a reasonable time after delivery and told to the seller. Also under UCC 2-608 revocation of acceptance must happen before their is any sustainable changes or defects to the product. Since the company did not wait till three weeks after receiving their product they voided their chances to be able to reject the products. With Warren Medical neglecting to hold their responsibilities and taking the time to inspect the products they took fully responsibility of the products in storing the products. Clean is not responsibility for replacing the product at this point. If Clean replaces them, that will be out of pure kindness of building good business relations. Question 2: Below post is from question 2 of order 107386 According to the Uniform Commercial Code, Section 2-301 and 2-309, the general duty of the seller is to make timely delivery of conforming goods (Government Regulation and the Legal Environment of Business, 2012). Clean did deliver the cases of disinfectant to Warren Medical on time. It is unclear if the disinfectants were frozen and damaged upon delivery because the staff failed to inspect them before moving them. A buyer is not obligated to accept the goods if they do not conform to the contract. Therefore, it can be assumed that the disinfectants qualify as “uniformed goods” agreed upon by both contracting parties (Government Regulation and the Legal Environment of Business, 2012). According to the Uniform Commercial Code, Sections 2-301 and 2-513, the general duty of the buyers is to inspect, accept, and pay for the goods delivered (Government Regulation and the Legal Environment of Business, 2012). First, Warren Medical has the right to inspect the goods delivered to see if they conform to the contract. Warren Medical failed to inspect the goods in a timely manner, which means they cannot revoke acceptance (Government Regulation and the Legal Environment of Business, 2012). Second, if the buyer takes the goods, they have accepted them. In this case, Warren Medical accepted the goods in silence, meaning that it failed to reject the items after a reasonable opportunity to inspect (Government Regulation and the Legal Environment of Business, 2012). However, there are two circumstances in which a buyer can revoke an acceptance of non-conforming goods according to the Uniform Commercial Code, Section 2-608. The first is if the buyer reasonably thought Clean could fix the good's nonconformity. The second is if the acceptance was due to a latent defect that could not reasonably have been discovered before acceptance (Government Regulation and the Legal Environment of Business, 2012). According to these two circumstances, it is unknown if the disinfectants were frozen upon delivery or if it was caused by being placed in the temporary storage. Also, the staff could have reasonably discovered the defect before acceptance by inspecting the shipment at the delivery time. Reference Government Regulation and the Legal Environment of Business (2012). Saylor Academy. Question 3: (Below post is from question 3 of order 107386) The problem of externalities has been dealt with through Government actions in terms of higher taxes like carbon tax or subsidies. But nowadays this problem of externalities has been rising due to higher use of heavyweight cars that are creating negative externality in the neighborhood (Zipper, 2022). Such large SUVs or pickup trucks that are in vogue in the cities hamper traffic, injure pedestrians and spew out more pollution. In order to mitigate the negative externality, the Government in the District of Columbia has proposed to make registration of new SUVs more expensive through higher registration fees. Since directly banning the large vehicles cannot be a viable option, the Government needs to forcefully privatize the additional cost of negative externality. Making the registration costlier seems to be a viable solution as car buyers will be forced to rethink their options. Reflection This assignment has helped me understanding how the social costs can be forced upon the perpetrators, which may bring the private cost curve nearer to the social cost curve. In real life scenarios, the Government needs to be proactive as it is the representative of the society in general, which suffers from externalities as was discussed in the Bloomberg article. Question 4: (Below post is from question 3 of order 107386) Didier Toubia (2022) writes that a meat tax could cause a negative externality to the sustainable farming and low-income families. A negative externality is defined as that of “a situation where a third party, outside the transaction, suffers from a market transaction by other,” (Greenlaw & Taylor, 2014). In his article, Toubia (2022) explains that the world is projected to consume more meat begging the question on if there should be a meat tax. He asserts that taxation of certain products to discourage their use is nothing new (think cigarettes or alcohol for example) so it would not be unusual for a government to start imposing taxes on these items (Toubia, 2022). To do so might increase the push towards more sustainable farming. However, applying the meat tax could drive sustainable farming out of the market defeating the potential purpose, and it would increase the cost of certain foods. The result of these actions would be the loss of sustainable foods and malnutrition across low-income families. Additionally, cultural traditions may cause families to cut back on other products to supplement the cost of the taxes to meat (Toubia, 2022). Toubia (2022) offers some solutions for sustainable farming, however, like providing subsidies to sustainable farming practices and the transition to sustainable farming, revamping regulatory framework, and educating consumers on sustainable purchases. This discussion helped me to understand externalities by applying the definition to a practical example. Externalities seems simple enough to understand by definition but they may be difficult to determine in real life. I feel confident that I could effectively identify a positive or negative externality in a given situation after reading this week’s resource on externalities and doing this discussion post. For example, emissions are a contributing factor to global warming. If I were to modify the exhaust system on my motorcycle to acquire the sound I want whenever I ride it, I might be contributing to greenhouse gasses that are harmful for the environment. In this scenario, the environment would suffer from the market transaction of me purchasing a new exhaust for install. Subsequently, this may cause a butterfly effect, and plant and wildlife may also suffer as negative externalities of my purchase. In a sense, this is also an opportunity cost. I gain a cool sound at the expense of the environment.