Answer:
No the suit will not succeed as their is no agreement
Explanation:
The contract was conditional contract. As the condition explicitly said that, the right to agree on terms and conditions is explicitly attorney's right. When the attorney has not agreed on the terms and conditions of Harbor Park, the company hasn't formed any contract. Furthermore, there is no limitation on Grondas to consider other available options and attorney is also not obliged to agree to Harbor's offer.
Thus the suit that says Grondas has breached the contract is meaningless and will not succeed in the court.
Answer:
gross profit under FIFO = $40,570 - $25,220 = $15,350
gross profit under LIFO = $40,570 - $26,340 = $14,230
gross profit under weighted average = $40,570 - $26,240 = $14,330
gross profit under specific id. = $40,570 - $26,070 = $14,500
Explanation:
sales revenue = (290 x $86.60) + (160 x $96.60) = $40,570
COGS under FIFO:
130 x $51.60 = $6,708
160 x $56.60 = $9,056
80 x $56.60 = $4,528
80 x $61,60 = $4,928
total COGS = $25,220
COGS under LIFO:
240 x $56.60 = $13,584
50 x $51.60 = $2,580
160 x $63.60 = $10,176
total COGS = $26,340
COGS under weighted average:
weighted average = [(130 x $51.60) + (240 x $56.60) + (100 x $61.60) + (180 x $63.60)] / 650 = $58.31
450 x $58.31 = $26,239.50 ≈ $26,240
COGS under specific method:
80 x $51.60 = $4,128
210 x $56.60 = $11,886
60 x $61.60 = $3,696
100 x $63,60 = $6,360
total COGS = $26,070
That is true,however; they are not your own and you are doing yourself a disservice. Grades aren't everything.
Answer:
To maximize utility, Bill can will buy one banana and one apple.
Explanation:
Utility maximisation refers to the concept that individuals and firms seek to get the highest satisfaction from their economic decisions.
For example, when deciding how to spend a fixed some, individuals will purchase the combination of goods/services that give the most satisfaction.
The theory of Utility maximization highlights two fators
- combination of goods
- Highest satisfaction that is cost effective
if a banana cost half as much as an apple,
Cost of banana = cost of apple/2
cost of apple - cost of banana × 2
Assuming the cost of one banana is $1
The cost of buying 6 bananas = 6×$1 = $6
the same $6 can only buy 3 apples
Therefore the price of apples is $2
If the total amount available = $6,
It can purchase one banana and one apple.
Answer: No, because Mallory and Raghav are not bound by the contract.
Explanation: Being bound by a contract entails being linked to a written agreement, the breaching of which could result in consequences lying with the person who breached the contract. However when this contract was entered into, there was a clause that allowed the parties to cancel the contract at any time. When Mallory fired Raghav the contract was subsequently cancelled, making the contract null and void (non - existent). This means that Raghav is not entitled to the outstanding 10 months' salaries.
