Answer:
266,2 units of capital per worker
Explanation:
The capital growth as stated is compound growth. Since technology and human capital are constant, there is not expected changed in productivity factors relationship, so the formula for compound growth, in this case, is: capital per worker in 3 years' time = capital per worker * (1+ annual rate growth) ^ 3. Computing numbers would be: capital per worker in 3 years' time = 200*(1+10)^3= 266,2
Answer: A
Explanation:
The borrower can adjust the monthly payment depending on his or her income.
5,200 + 21,000 + 1,300 + 1,200 = 10,400 ÷ 10 totally investment 1,040 %
Answer: Machine B because it has the lower Present Value
Explanation:
<h2>
Machine A</h2>
= Present Value of income - Present Value of Costs
Present value of Income;
Sold for $5,000 after 10 years.
= 5,000/ (1 + 8%)^10
= $2,315.97
Present Value of Costs;
Purchased for $48,000.
Maintenance of $1,000 per year for years.
Present value of maintenance= 1,000 * Present value factor of annuity, 10 years, 8%
= 1,000 * 6.7101
= $6,710.10
Machine A Present Value
= 2,315.97 - 6,710.10 - 48,000
= -$52,394
<h2>
Machine B</h2>
No salvage value.
Present Value of costs
Purchased for $40,000.
Present value of maintenance = (4,000 / (1 + 8%)^3) + (5,000 / ( 1 + 8)^6) + (6,000 / ( 1 + 8%)^8)
= -$9,567.79
Present Value = -40,000 - 9,567.79
= -$49,568
Answer:
<em>Ratification by Principal One of the criteria for enactment is that all material truths involved in the transaction must be known to the Principal. Van Stavern was not aware of Hash's behaviour. </em>
He did not realize that somehow the steel is being shipped under his name, and that the shipments were being billed him directly. Unlike liability through obvious authority, approval by the principal is a positive act by which he or she acknowledges the agent's illegal actions.
Just a principal would ratify; thus, Van Stavern was not directly imputed to information by the invoices and checks signed by Van Stavern's workers.
The court stated that the use of corporate checks was further proof that Van Stavern regarded the expenditures as business, not private. So Van Stavern could not be held personally liable.
Remember that on Sutton Steel that's not excessively harsh. Sutton understood it was working with a building company and did not seek to get the personal approval of the contract from Van Stavern.
<em>Lawfully, Sutton's agreement in this case is called an unaccepted offer which can be withdrawn at any time.</em>
<em></em>
