Answer:
So we can offer for the house $180119.95
Explanation:
Monthly income =$4000
Monthly mortgage payment allowed (P)= 25% of 4000= $1000
Interest rate per month (i)= 0.5%
Number of months in total (n)= 30*12= 360
Maximum loan affordable = P*(1-(1/(1+i)^n))/i
=1000*(1-(1/(1+0.5%)^360))/0.5%
=$166791.61
Closing cost is 4% of loan value = 166791.61*4% =$6671.66
Balance Amount left for down payment = 20000-6671.66
=$13328.34
It means we can pay $6671.66 for closing cost of Loan and $13328.34 for down payment.
Cost of house paid maximum = Down payment + Affordable loan
=13328.34+166791.61
=$180119.95
So we can offer for the house $180119.95
That is really hard to answer what are u working on
Answer:
1. I feel like Pat's new strategy isn't ethical. Pat doesn't pay for the suits; he just buys them and then returns them. Pat benefits, but the store he gets the suits from doesn't. In fact, they are harmed from this transaction because they are unable to have the suit for others to buy while Pat has it. There could be consequences with this strategy. For example, the suit might be damaged, and Pat won't be able to return it. Another problem is that others might find out about Pat's strategy, and they might view them as unprofessional. This is a problem for Pat since the reason Pat wore those suits was to look professional.
2. The stores are harmed from this transaction. They are unable to sell the suits to other buyers. The stores lose potential customers, so the stores lose potential money.
3. The companies should record that Pat had bought the suit only to return it the next day, so that they can act accordingly when Pat or someone else comes back to "buy" a suit.
Explanation:
Answer:
The correct answer is option (a) The court probably found that the state law was unconstitutional under the supremacy cause.
Explanation:
Solution
From the given questions it states that, What would be the court's most likely response to Ralph's lawsuit.
The court's decision response would be that, I that when the situation arises or occurs in that case, where there is a conflict which arises between federal and state law then in that case federal law must be applied.
Answer:
Explanation:
1. True
Separation of record keeping for assets from custody over assets in custody over assets reduces theft and fraud . except in a case of collusion.
Fraud and theft of assets can be easily perpetrated and covered up when an individual combines the role.
2. False
Internal control focuses more on the internal operation of an organization rather than the external. Even though it can still be of impact in checking the excesses of external parties like the government agencies , but that is not its primary objective
3.True
Internal control's main objectives can be best accomplished when there is an operational system with managerial policies that protect waste , fraud and theft , being the major factors targeted to control
4.False
Separating the responsibility for a transaction between two or more individuals or departments is a major way of preventing creation of fictitious invoices and payment as it could have easily be detected if different individuals are involved in approval and payment of invoices.
