Answer:
(9,594)
Explanation:
The net cash movement during a period the sum of cashflow from operations (CFO), cashflow from investing activities (CFI) and cashflow from financing (CFF) activities. On the other hand, that net cash movement is also calculated as the difference between end of year cash position and start of year cash position. Given that, we have the equation as below:
End of year cash position - Start of year cash position = CFO + CFI + CFF
Putting all the number together, we have:
7,102 - 6,836 = 15,435 - 5,575 + CFF
Solve the equation, we have CFF = (9,594)
Answer:
B
Explanation:
Had the same question and it was the correct answer
Answer:
Jones is liable to pay.
He is liable to pay to the tune of $1000. This may be negotiated however if it is not fair.
Explanation:
See the following points
- The question above is an example of Implied At-law contracts. (We will get to the definition of this in a bit).
- A contract is a legally binding agreement that recognises and governs the rights and duties of the parties to the agreement. A contract is legally enforceable because it meets the requirements and approval of<u> the Law</u>. From the above definition it is clear that two people may actually be engaging in a contract without knowing it.
- The law defines that a contract is.
- Contracts may be Express or Implied.
- Express contracts are simply contracts that are stated expressly, or openly, in either writing or orally, at the time of contract formation.
- Implied contracts are created when two or more parties have no written contract.
- There are two types of implied contracts:
- Implied In-Fact Contracts: these are contracts which create an obligation between the parties based on the facts of the situation. For example, assume your neighbor hires you to wash his car every Friday for the entire holidays. You wash your neighbor’s car for the first four weekends of the holidays and get paid on Friday morning each time. The fifth Friday you wash the car and when you arrive at your neighbor’s house for your pay, your neighbor refuses to pay you. The law will infer that there is a contract between you and your neighbor, even though you never put anything in writing. This is an implied in-fact contract.
2. The other type of Implied contract is that which is Implied At-Law
In the case between Jones and Smith, the law imposes a duty to perform a contract, and will enforce such a contract even against a person’s will, where the situation is such that without this legal intervention, one party would be <u>unfairly enriched</u> or advantaged by another party’s action.
- In the question above, Smith is a CPA. He is qualified in every respect to carry out Professional Tax services. His services may be relied upon with a great degree of confidence.
- If Jones had not filed those tax returns, he probably would have lost monies that should have accrued to him from the government.
This type of agreement is also considered a quasi-contract. A quasi-contract occurs where the law imposes an obligation upon the parties where in fact the parties did not intend to enter into a contract and made no promise to perform.
However, because one party would be unjustly enriched by another party’s action, the beneficiary of those actions must make restitution or pay fair value for the services provided, even though there was never any intention to enter into an agreement.
Cheers!
Answer:
Flex warehousing
Explanation:
Flex warehousing also known as Public Warehousing, is a form of warehousing in which various firms seek to store high-turnover product in spaces for short periods of time.
It is a type of warehouse space which allows many clients' products to be received, handled, stored, and transported out in a flexible environment.
It is used to cater for overflow of goods, so as to maximize the space and labor reserved for only one contract client at a time.
Hence , in this case, this is an example of FLEX WAREHOUSING.
Answer and Explanation:
I will go through each and every option explaining the reasons and what option would be the best:
The (a) part says 'difference in wages will eventually disappear since a haircut is a homogeneous good' - This is not true because even though it is an homogeneous product, some customers do have a strong preference for barbers who are not going bald. Therefore, they know their worth and they would want to capitalize on that and get paid just a bit more than bald barbers.
The (b) part says 'barbershops that hire barbers with hair will be able to charge a higher price for a haircut to those consumers who have a strong preference for barbers with hair'. - If the barbershop charges higher price for barbers that have hair then the customers will prefer bald barbers as the questions mentions that there is high competition and since it is an homogeneous, customers would be willing to save money and get their haircut from some other barber.
The (c) part says 'barbershops that hire bald barbers will always be much more profitable' - Not necessarily. The reason is that some customers have a strong preference for barbers who are not bald and therefore, that would help barbershops who have barbers with hair to be a bit more profitable as some additional customers would want their services.
The (d) part says 'barbershops that hire barbers with hair will always be much more profitable' - This is the best option and the reason for it is because some customers have a strong preference for barbers with hair and that would help the barbershop to earn more. They would have the customers who already indifferent to whoever cuts their hair and in addition to that, they would also have the customers who have their preference.
Hence the answer is D.