Answer:
free rider
true
true
Explanation:
The free rider problem is a form of market failure. It occurs when people benefit from a good or service of communal nature and do not pay to enjoy these services.
Downtown abbey can be classified as a public good, if it is made a private good, the problem would be solved
A public good is a good that is non excludable and non rivalrous.
A private good is a good that is excludable and rivalrous. They are usually exchanged in the market by private sector businesses. It
Answer:
Original Cost = $26.10
Annual Amortization (Old) = $26.10 / 9 years
Annual Amortization (Old) = $2.9 million
Amortization till Date (2017 - 2021) = $2.9*4 = $11.6 million
Unamortized Value = $26.10 million - $11.6 million
Unamortized Value = $14.5 million
Remaining Life = 6 - 4
Remaining Life = 2 Years
New Amortization = Unamortized Value/Remaining Life
New Amortization = $14.5/2
New Amortization = $7.25 million
Journal Entry
Amortization Expense Debit - $7.25 million
Patent Credit - $7.25 million
Answer:
44
Explanation:
according to the constant dividend growth model
price = d1 / (r - g)
d1 = next dividend to be paid
r = cost of equity
g = growth rate
2.2 / 0.1 - 0.05 = 44
At a small company, one person prepares the paychecks for employees and another person reviews the check amounts and signs the checks. this is an example of creating checks and balances approach to combatting destructive leadership.
<h3>
What is company?</h3>
The term "company" refers to legal entities that are lawfully registered under the Company Act. The company's major goal is to increase profits while maintaining goodwill. With the assistance of management, the organization was flawlessly run. Employees are compensated by the company.
According to the small company, one authorisation figure checks the other's work being done, and thus maintains balance. The destructive leadership is checked and balanced.
As a result, the is an example of creating checks and balances approach to combatting destructive leadership.
Learn more about on company, here;
brainly.com/question/29354835
#SPJ1
Your question is incomplete, but most probably the full question was.
a- emphasizing low power distance
b- empowering employees
c- creating checks and balances
d- establishing norms and values
Answer:
NO, court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the landscaper's contract claim
Explanation:
given data
landscape work = $30,000
seeking in damages = $100,000
solution
landscaper assert and maintain claim against an home owner for breach of contract is no because court have diversity of an citizenship in the jurisdiction over an home owner for negligence claims .
we know that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure permit only counter claims and federal court have not any subject matter jurisdiction over an landscaper contract claims
