Answer:
Middle managers.
Explanation:
A middle manager refers to an individual who acts as an intermediary between the executive management (top or senior) and the lower (junior) level staffs in an hierarchical organization.
Middle managers make tactical decisions, which deal with activities such as short-term planning, organizing, and control. They are saddled with the responsibility of controlling and supervision of their subordinates (junior employees), as well as presenting innovative ideas and opportunities to the executive management team.
Answer:
$16,300
Explanation:
When a company makes sales on account/credit, revenue is recognized as long as the recognition criteria is met. The entries posted are debit accounts receivable and credit revenue.
Should the company assess that part (or even all) of these receivables may be incollectible, a provision is made. This requires that the amount so determined by the company that may be incollectible is accounted for by
Debit Bad debt expense
Credit Allowance for doubtful debt
Hence the bad debt expense to be recorded is $16,300
Answer:
understated assets, retained earnings, and net income
Explanation:
As in the given case, the inventory balance at the end of the year does include the $10,000 of inventory plus it also excluded from the physical count
So, if the error is not found, the effect of this error is assets are understated instead of overstated which results the retained earnings and the net income understated
Answer:
B. minority domination.
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that this work team is most likely experiencing minority domination. This term refers to when an individual or minority in a group controls the overall aspects or direction of the group. Which is what happening in this situation since, Patrick is only a small part of the group (minority) but still controls what is said and expressed within the group.
Answer:
The most likely result at trial is that the landowner's claim for specific performance will be successful, and she will be awarded the entire price of contract.
Explanation:
When there isn't a statute, the buyer bears the risk of loss when property subject to a contract for sale is destroyed without fault of any party prior to the date specified for closing. Unless the contract specifies otherwise, the buyer must pay the contract price even if the property is damaged by fire.
The inn was burned down in this case after the landowner and the buyer signed a contract for the sale of the property, but before the closing date. The contract appears to be silent on the risk of loss, and no appropriate statute exists. As a result of the common law rule, the buyer bears the risk of loss. Therefore, the landowner has the right to particular execution of the contract, which implies that the entire stipulated contract price must be paid by the buyer.
Regardless of the property's drop in worth owing to the fire, the $1 million contract price must be paid by the buyer because he bears the risk of loss.
Therefore, the most likely result at trial is that the landowner's claim for specific performance will be successful, and she will be awarded the entire price of contract.