Answer:
Sometimes our justice system can really surprise us. How can a person sue another individual based on arguments that are known to be false? Shouldn't the courts just say no to this kind of lawsuits?
It's plain common sense that the court would dictate that the agreement should be annulled or rescinded based on the mother's fraud attempt or maybe mutual mistake between Michael Jordan and her. Even if they were both convinced that he was the father, after it was proven that he wasn't, the court shouldn't have even wasted its time (and taxpayers money) with this case.
Answer:
Explanation:
Using the EOQ Formula = EOQ
D = Demand = 773
O = Ordering Cost =28
H = holding Cost = 11*33% =3.63
So we have :
EOQ=
EOQ= 
EOQ=
EOQ= 
EOQ= 109.20196
Previous per unit order cost = 28/773 =0.03622
No of Orders = D/o
No of Orders = 773/109.20196 =7.0786
Cost per order =109.20196*0.03622 =3.9555
Total order cost= 7.0786*3.9555=27.9998
At EOQ holding Cost is equal to Order Cost
New Order cost =27.9998
Holding Cost = 27.9998
New cost As per EOQ = 56
Previous (33+28) = 61
Net Saving = 5
Answer:
Credited
Explanation:
Equity Account <em>increase</em> on the credit side and <em>decrease </em>on the debit side.
So, when the account increased, we say it has been credited. This means further stock has been issued to new or existing owners.
Answer:
c. 30 percent lower.
Explanation:
Since the manufacturer is contemplating a switch from buying to producing a certain item while setup cost would be the same as ordering cost, the production rate would be about double the usage rate.
Compared to the Economic Order Quantity (EOQ), the maximum inventory would be approximately 30 percent lower under Economic Production Quantity (EPQ), and higher under EOQ.
A purpose of government regulation in a mixed-market economy is to protect A) Property rights
