Answer:
The expanding accounting equation is:
Assets = Liabilities + Stockholders Equity
[Common Stock + Retained Earnings]
(Revenues - Expenses - Dividends)
Now, we replace the amounts in the formula
$84,325 = $2,560 + X
[ X + R ]
($54,780 - $28,125 - $13,450)
$84,325 = $2,560 + X
[ X + R ]
($54,780 - $28,125 - $13,450)
$84,325 = $2,560 + X
[ X + $13,205 ]
$84,325 = $2,560 + X
[ 68,560 + $13,205 ]
$84,325 = $2,560 + $81,765
Both sides are now equal to $84,325
Thus, Common Stock = $68,560
Answer: Public Goods
Explanation:
Here, in this particular scenario the police service used by DeVonda is referred to as the<em> public good</em>. Under the discipline of economics, the public good is referred to as the good which is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. This means that any individual will not be excluded from the utilization of the commodity and under which the usage does not tend to decrease it's availability to the other individuals. Therefore the commodity can further be adequately utilized by more than just one individual.
Answer:
$64,000
Explanation:
If the policy only covered $80,000 and it also had a coinsurance of 80%, then the insured ill receive: $80,000 x 80% = $64,000
The purpose of coinsurance is to lower the premiums by sharing the risks between the insured and the insurance company. In this case, the insured shares 20% of any risks that the property might suffer and the insurance company covers the remaining 80%. The higher the percentage of the coinsurance, the lower the premium, but the risk for the insured increases.
Answer:
According to McNeely, Wagner had to choose between seeking the remaining payment ($250,000 x 1/3) or keeping the timber.
This was a real case: "<em>Glen WAGNER and Bonnie Wagner, Respondents, v. Theodore R. McNEELY, Appellant. (96 CV 0525; CA A100217)
, July 07, 1999</em>"
The Court of Appeals of Oregon ruled that due to usage and customs of the timber industry in Oregon, there was nothing illegal in the plaintiff (Wagner) keeping the timber and seeking the payment. It was a very technical issue regarding two different rules that seem to be contradictory (ORS 72.7090 and ORS 72.7190). The court actually decided not to rule on this issue, so the lower court's decision remained.