Please review this and let me know if I need to change anything, thank you:

Q.There are several concurrent inquiries into supermarkets in Australia, notably Coles and Woolworths.See, for example, the ACCC's ongoing inquiry. Consider one of the supermarkets, say Coles, negotiating with two different suppliers of products that it sells: a farmer who grows broccoli; andArnott's the manufacturer of Tim Tams (amongst other products).

Using the tools of analysis taught in OLET2135 (I've chosen Bargaining negotiation strategies and subgame perfect credible equilibrium further using backward induction), analyse how the negotiations (and the outcome)would be different (or the same) for the two negotiations. How do you think consumers will fare inthe outcomes in both cases?

Negotiation 1:

In negotiations with a broccoli farmer, Coles holds significant bargaining power due to the perishable nature of the product and the availability of alternative suppliers. The bargaining strategy for Coles involves leveraging its position to push for lower prices. Hypothetically, the payoffs might be 80 for Coles and 20 for the farmer, reflecting Coles' higher profit margin from lower procurement costs. Using SPCE and backward induction, the farmer anticipates Coles' pressure and likely accepts unfavourable terms to avoid zero sales. This acceptance forms the subgame perfect equilibrium, where the farmer's best response is to concede to Coles' demands, given the high stakes of securing a reliable buyer.

\fCOLES Low Price High Price FARMER FARMER Accept Reject Accept Reject (80,20) (0,0) (70,30) (0,0)