Answer:
The mayor is basically the city's chief executive, Meanwhile the council is the city's primary legislative body if you will. These make up general characteristics of a strong mayor council of governments . Therefore the mayor could or may appoint and remove departmental heads. The mayor can also draft and propose a budget to the city council basically.
Answer:
A. $190,000
Explanation:
The breakdown analysis of Balance Sheet and Income Statement in terms of Cash in the form of Operating, Investing and Financing activities is known as Cash Flow Statement or the Statement of Cash Flows.
In Investing Activities Cash Flow we simply add Cash Proceeds from the sale of assets and subtract any proceeds from the purchases. The difference between the two is called Cash Flow from investing activities and it how much cash surplus or deficit we have from Investing Activities of Cash.
In the Statement of Cash Flows calculating Net Cash provided by investing activities is simple. Simply add Sale of Land, Sale of Equipment and Issuance of Common Stock. Subtract Purchase of Equipment from it and you will get the Net Cash Flow from Investing Activities.
Payment of Cash Dividend is the Financing Activities item so will not be taken into consideration in Investing Activities Cash flow as follows:
(+) Sale of Land $100,000
(+) Sale of Equipment $50,000
(+) Issuance of Common Stock 70,000
(-) Purchase of Equipment $30,000
NET CASH FLOW from INVESTING ACTIVITIES $190,000
Answer:
A=615.10
Explanation:
The balance after six years is the future value of 459 at a 5% interest rate.
The applicable formula is
A= P( 1+ r )^n
A = amount after six years
P= 459
r=5%
N=6 year
A= 459(1+5/100)^6
A = 459(1.05)^6
A=459 x 1.34
A=615.06
A=615.10
Answer:
Certainly, they cannot prevail. The contract terms stated clearly that "time is of the essence of this contract." The Bassos and Miceli and Slonim Development Corp did not actually respect this contract term.
The contract was expected to have closed at 10:00 am on May 16, 1988, and not after. By the time that Dierberg left the venue, the contract should have been finalized. Alternatively, if there were unseen delays, Dierberg should have been informed at least 30 minutes before 10:00 am.
Explanation:
The argument by Miceli and Slonim does not hold water. The contract did require closing exactly at 10:00 AM, and not some time on May 16. In my considered opinion, suing Dierberg is a waste of court time and process.
