Answer:
evidence that the negligent act is the proximate cause of the loss.
Explanation:
According to my research on different contract requirements, I can say that based on the information provided within the question the element that is absent is the evidence that the negligent act is the proximate cause of the loss. This is because there is no proof within the statement that indicates that "Smith Failing the class" is because Jones did not fulfill his part of the contract.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
Answer:
$5,880
Explanation:
The computation of the value of inventory at the lower of cost or market value is shown below
= Number of units purchased × lower per unit
= 280 units $21
= $5,880
Since the lower value per unit is $21 among all given per unit value and the same is to be considered
All other information which is given is irrelevant. Hence, ignored it
Answer:
Price of bond = $ 924.50
Explanation:
<em>The value of the bond is the present value(PV) of the future cash receipts expected from the bond. The value is equal to present values of interest payment plus the redemption value (RV). </em>
Value of Bond = PV of interest + PV of RV
The price of the bond can be worked out as follows:
Step 1
PV of interest payments
annul interest payment = 6.4 % × 1,000 = 64
Annual yield = 7.5%
Total period to maturity (in years) =10
PV of interest =
64 × (1- (1.075)^(-10)/)/0.075= 439.30
Step 2
PV of Redemption Value
= 1,000× (1.075)^(-10) =
485.19
Step 3
Price of bond
439.30 + 485.19 =$924.49
Price of bond = $ 924.50
Answer: Loss of $22,000
Explanation:
Gain (loss) = Net Carrying Value of Bonds recalled - Price bond called at
Net Carrying Value of Bonds
= Par value - Unamortized discount
= 300,000 - 10,000
= $290,000
Gain (loss) = 290,000 - (300,000 * 104)
= ($22,000)
Answer: Because the issuer official no longer holds elected office, the contribution limits of Rule G-37 do not apply.
Explanation:
Rule G-37 is a way to ensure that Municipal Issuers are not unduly influenced by those who donated to their campaigns to get into a position to become Municipal Issuers.
It prohibites for 2 years, Municipal Finance Professionals (MFP) amongst others from engaging in municipal securities business with a Municipal issuer.
An exception however, is that if the MFP is entitled to a vote for the Official in question, they can donate no more than $250 per election.
Seeing as the Municipal Issuer Officer has lost her position, the MFP need not worry about this $250 limit as it no longer applies to her. The MFP is free to donate $500 to the "clean-up" campaign.