The gestalt principles of organisation state that the human mind has this ability to arrange elements of our experiences in such a way that it forms individual perceptions and views of our environment as based on the frameworks of perception stated.
Answer:a. an upward-sloping short-run aggregate supply curve
Explanation:
variable a represent an upward sloping short run aggregate supply curve.
The slope of the supply curve is positive which tells us that the quantity supplied has a positive relationship with Price.When price increases the quantity supplied will increase because the law of supply states that more quantity is supplied at a higher price
Answer:
$101,200
Explanation:
the cost of land = purchase price of the land + razing expenses - sales of salvaged materials + attorney's fees + broker's fees = $86,000 + $9,700 - $4,400 + $1,500 + $8,400 = $101,200
The cost of the driveways and parking lot are recorded separately (as land improvements), not under cost of land because they can be depreciated.
Architect's fees are generally included in the construction costs of the building, not in the land cost. The architect's fees are covered before the construction starts because you need the blueprints in order to start the construction.
Answer:
This was an actual court case that ended in the Court of Appeals of the First District of California. Initially a lower court had ruled against the Sharabianlous and set extremely high compensations for damages to Berenstein. I do not understand why the court did it since it was proven that the land was contaminated and couldn't be sold under unless cleaned.
Finally, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the Sharabianlous, not because they thought they were right, but due to errors in the original trial.
The big issue in this case was that the contract signed by the Sharabianlous wasn't clear enough about what would happen if the land was not suitable for sale and they also failed to seek a lawyer when the contamination issues became obvious. If you read the case, even the real estate broker acted against the Sharabianlous when the property was appraised since he didn't tell the appraiser about the contamination issues.
The final ruling was made in 2010, 8 years after the parties engaged in the transaction, which gives us an idea of how complicated things can get when legal procedures are not followed, even though the outcome should be obvious.
If I was part of a jury and the case was about property that couldn't be sold due to contamination, I would probably vote in favor of the buyer, not the seller. It's common sense, but sometimes it you do not follow the appropriate legal path, common sense makes no sense at all.
