Final answer:
The historical statements regarding the Conciliatory Proposition and the Border States' acceptance of emancipation proposals are both false. Additionally, in the goods market, sellers might accept prices lower than the equilibrium price due to various market forces or strategic decisions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement An "escape" clause allows the seller to continue to offer the property for sale even after accepting an offer from the buyer is not directly related to the exercises provided, as they pertain to historical events rather than real estate concepts. Let's address the historical statements instead:
- Exercise 8.1.3 suggests that the Conciliatory Proposition allowed the mother country to give into most demands of the American colonists. This is false. The Conciliatory Proposition of 1775 was an attempt by the British to reduce the growing conflict by suggesting that the American colonies would be taxed only by their own consent. However, it failed to address the colonists' wider concerns about representation.
- The second statement about the Border States' acceptance of Lincoln's proposals for gradual compensated emancipation is also false. The Border States were non-committal and did not quickly accept these proposals. Eventually, the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, was passed by Congress and ratified by the required number of states without full reliance on the Border States' immediate support.
Regarding the goods market, the statement that no seller would be willing to sell for less than the equilibrium price is false because there can be various reasons why a seller might choose to sell at a lower price. These reasons can include the desire to clear out inventory, to underprice competitors and gain market share, or due to necessity in times of financial strain. Thus, while it is generally favorable to sell at or above the equilibrium price, market conditions can compel sellers to accept lower prices.