Answer:
COGS= $130,000
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
A retail operation has an average gross margin of 35%.
Sales= $200,000.00
<u>To calculate the cost of goods sold, we need to use the following formula:</u>
Gross margin= sales - COGS
COGS= sales - gross margin
COGS= 200,000 - (200,000*0.35)
COGS= $130,000
Answer:
explains how a firm's WACC increases with the use of financial leverage.
Explanation:
According to the MM Proposition II with taxes, the cost of equity rises with the increases use of debt in the capital structure of a firm.
= 
× 
As cost of equity increases, the firm's WACC increases also
The MM Proposition I with taxes reveals how utilizing the tax shield on debt causes an increase in the value of a firm
He may be liable for<u> "damages, fines, or imprisonment."</u>
Copyright law does not contain any proviso that enables unapproved gatherings to make individual duplicates of copyrighted items. Be that as it may, under the teaching of "reasonable utilize," people might be allowed to make reinforcement duplicates or authentic duplicates of a few materials as long as specific conditions are met. Making a duplicate of a copyrighted work for your very own usability is probably going to be considered copyright encroachment. Be that as it may, on the off chance that you are making a duplicate so you may utilize a copyrighted item on the off chance that the first is stolen, harmed or devastated, your direct may fall inside the teaching of reasonable utilize.
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>
