Team bonding through the subjugation of junior members is not valid. Junior members should be encouraged by the senior members to strive for the team, not belittled or humiliated in the process. Different people assume comradery in different ways, some through degradation or laughter, and others through positivity and cohesiveness, but subjugation and humiliation should never be a factor when building teams, especially in today’s society since we live in such a diverse culture in this country. If an organization relied on humiliating banter in order to form a collective unit, then it shows that the organization is less cohesive and reflects poor management and leadership skills within the organization.
Answer: No, Paul has not breached a contract.
Explanation: To answer this, we must first we must define what a contract is.
A contract is an agreement between two or more people that is legally binding, and which guides or governs the actions or conducts of the parties involved.
A quality that makes a contract legally binding is that it is enforceable by law.
In the scenario given in the question above, Paul has not breached any contract because there isn't one. The promise to buy dinner has not been legally bound, therefore, it is not enforceable by law, in essence, it is not qualified to be called a contract.
Answer:
The City of Willows
Reconciliation Entries:
Debit Cash $500
Credit Deferred Revenue $500
To record the increase of deferred revenue.
Debit Compensated Absences Expense $150
Credit Compensated Absences Liability $150
To record the increase of compensated absences.
Explanation:
a) Data and Calculations:
Beginning balances:
Deferred Revenue = $3,500
Compensated Absences Liability = $1,000
Increases during the year:
Deferred Revenue = $500
Compensated Absences = $150
Reconciliation Entries:
Cash will increase by $500 and Deferred Revenue will increase by $500
Expenses will increase by $150 and Compensated Absences (Liability) will increase by $150.
Answer:
C. Compensatory damages and consequential damages.
Explanation:
The reason is that the company can only sue Santa for its compensatory damage of paying 15% extra and consequential damages which are only claimable if the party to contract knows that not performing the contract will contribute to consequential damages which are here losses of sales which amount to 25% of sales.
