<span>The answer is if Jim's marginal revenue is greater than his marginal cost.
Marginal revenue refers to the value that will Jim give to the company if the company decided to employ Jim. (how much profit he will create for the company)
The marginal cost on the other hand refers to the value that company must sacrifice in order to keep him working (the salary and benefit)</span>
Answer: Automatically
Explanation: The warranty of merchantability could be explained as a guarantee that a product purchased will meet the usual and regular standard or requirement of such product. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the warranty of merchantability is implied as this automatic unless the defects in the regular nature or specification of the product is clearly stated. In the scenario above, the warranty of implied merchantability automatically arises in the sale of the trampolines and as such, the trampoline must meet the regular standard of the product since no defect is explicitly stated in the regular specification.
Answer:
I used an excel spreadsheet to record this transactions on an accounting equation.
Practice Makes Perfect, Inc.
Income Statement
For the month ended July 31, 202x
Revenues $2,000
Expenses:
- Advertising expense $500
- Rent expense $1,000
- Wages expense $1,000
- Supplies expense $300
- Depreciation expense $750
- Interest expense $417 <u> ($3,967)</u>
Net income ($1,967)
Practice Makes Perfect, Inc.
Balance Sheet
For the month ended July 31, 202x
Assets:
- Cash $99,783
- Accounts receivables $1,800
- Supplies $1,700
- Pianos $47,250
Total assets $150,533
Liabilities:
- Accounts payable $2,500
- Notes payable $50,000
Total liabilities $52,500
Stockholders' equity
- Common stock $100,000
- Retained earnings ($1,967)
Total stockholders' equity $98,033
Total liabilities + equity $150,533
A. It is decreased by 50,000 (I'm 50% sure)
6% of 50,000 is 3,000
Answer:
Provide the buyer with funds for a foreseeable loss beyond the contract
Explanation:
Consequential damages in contracts is different from incidental or actual damages because it causes a loss that impacts the business of the other party beyond the contract horizon, when the opposite party fails to fulfill his side of the contractual obligations.
In the scenario, Nevada's failure to deliver within agreed contractual timing is not just delaying the time of Meatpackers but as a consequence, is also causing them loss in money terms which will impact their business beyond the contract horizon.
Hence an award of consequential damages to Meatpackers will provide the buyer with funds for a foreseeable loss beyond the contract.