Answer:
the cash payback period is 6.09 years
Explanation:
The computation of the cash payback period is shown below:
= Initial Investment ÷ Net annual cash inflow
= $1,400,000 ÷ $230,000
= 6.09
Now the net annual cash flow is
.
Net operating income $90,000.00
Add: Depreciation $140,000.00
Net annual cash inflow $230,000.00
Hence, the cash payback period is 6.09 years
Explanation:
Consumers buy products for their own use, while businesses buy goods to use in their continuing activities and resell to consumers. Customers appetite and the need for manufacturing supplies force organizations to buy products in greater quantities than people.
Answer:
They are guilty of nothing, what they are doing is called whistle-blowing and it is not a crime, it a way of stopping crimes from being committed.
Explanation:
A whistle-blower is an employee or any person within an organization that informs about illegal activities carried out within the organization. Sometimes whistle-blowers can even earn money form doing the right thing. For example, the IRS pays whistle-blowers up to 30% of additional money it collects by using information provided by whistle-blowers.
What should you tell her is: She do not have to enroll under Part B before she enroll in a prescription drug plan.
Medicare prescription drug plan is plan that help to cover all prescribed drugs which means that any person under the plan drugs is covered thereby by saving costs.
Based on the scenario every person who is qualified to Part A or who is enrolled under Part B is qualified to register for Medicare prescription drug plan.
Since she is qualified for Part A, she do not need to register or enroll in Part B before been enrolled in a Medicare prescription drug plan.
Inconclusion What should you tell her is: She do not have to enroll under Part B before she enroll in a prescription drug plan.
Learn more here:
brainly.com/question/2484113
Answer:
These are the options for the question:
- Breach of duty.
- Strict liability.
- Recklessness.
- Negligence per se
And this is the correct answer:
Explanation:
Negligence per se consist in act that is neglectful, or unlawful, because it explicitely violates a statue or regulation.
In this case, the statue was the new state law that required smoke detectors to be maintained. The company that installed the smoke detector inside Jose's house clearly did not maintain the detector because otherwise, it would have gone off when the fire started, and Jose probably would not have died.
It is a negligence per se from the smoke detector company, and Jose's wife can lawfully sue them for that very reason.
