Answer:
Explanation:
a) x1 = number of unit product 1 to produce , and
x2 number of unit product 2 to produce
A linear program that will maximize world light profit is the following
maximize 
subject to 
Unit 1 is used both in products in 1 : 3 ratio which can be a maximum of 200 unit 2 is used in 2 : 2 ratio which can be maximum of 300
So, this can be written as the inequations
Profit functio is p = 0ne dollar on product A and two dollar on product B
= x + 2y
Now , we find a feasible area whose extremeties will give the maximum profit for, the graph is ( see attached file )
So on the graph, we can get the other extremeties of the shaded regional so which will not give maximum profit ,
Thus , the maximum possible profit is
p = ($1 * 125) + ($2 * 25)
= $175
Purchases = Sales units + Closing inventory - Beginning Inventory
= 7,400 + (2,400 * 120%) - 2,400
= 7,800 units
Answer: The fringe benefit is worth $182 more than the additional salary.
Explanation:
The Fringe benefit is valued at $3,600.
The additional salary after taxes is:
= 5,000 - (5,000 * 24%) - (5,000 * 7.65%)
= 5,000 - 1,200 - 382.5
= $3,418
The Fringe benefit is worth more than the salary by:
= 3,600 - 3,418
= $182
<em>Options are more probably for a variant of this question. </em>
Answer:
a. $365,000
b. $346,800
Explanation:
The computations are shown below:
a. For product cost:
= Direct materials used + Direct labor + manufacturing overhead
where,
Manufacturing overhead = Indirect labor + Property taxes, factory + Depreciation of production equipment
= $45,000 + $18,900 + $42,200
= $106,100
So, the product cost would be
= $168,100 + $90,800 + $106,100
= $365,000
b. For period cost
= Marketing salaries + Administrative travel + Sales commissions + Advertising
= $51,700 + $100,800 + $50,000 + $144,300
= $346,800
Answer:
Hanna is correct.
Explanation:
The sale of the 2004 Dodge cannot be construed to be a sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code since this law covers sales of goods by merchants. Hanna cannot be said to be a merchant of 2004 Dodge as she is not known to be in the business for the purchase and sale of cars. Therefore, the case should be adjudicated under the common law. What has taken place in this instance is the exchange of a personal asset. Hanna cannot make a trading profit from the sale, but a capital gain. Rachel is not correct.
